Bolitics The New Condem Government

[meregreen]

Deficit or not. The kind of things being touted by the Tories have been on their wish list for years. They are nothing more than a bunch of opportunist shysters. Osborne is an economic ignoramus who has just laid the foundations for a Tory defeat at the next election, so every cloud has a silver lining. Way to go Georgie boy

[peterms]

There is some Tory unease emerging among conference-goers about the child benefit cuts, according to journos on the spot.

No doubt the faithful will be elated about the benefit cap, and the prospect of driving unemployed vagrants from the parish:

The Shelter chief executive, Campbell Robb, said the cap would drive thousands of people from their homes into areas with more limited job opportunities. A senior London housing official, speaking off the record due to his civil service status, said: " I have been in housing for 30 years and I have never seen anything like this in terms of projected population movements. London is going to be a bit like Paris, with the poor living on the periphery. In many boroughs in inner London in three or four years there will be no poor people living in the private rented sector … it is like something from the 19th century."

The source said: "Given rents in London, in the case of a five-person household living in inner London a family will have £100 a week left to live on, and £60 of that might go on fuel. It is not feasible."

Conservative sources admitted the aim was to push poor, workless families out of inner London and force down rents in the private rented sector – the key driver of the ballooning housing benefit bill.

It will be like a larger-scale, legal form of Shirley Porter's gerrymandering. Or a less in-your-face version of pass laws or the Israeli wall.

We're all in this together.

[Awol]

There is some Tory unease emerging among conference-goers about the child benefit cuts, according to journos on the spot.

Indeed, even IDS said he "didn't love the idea".

Hopefully Osborne will be forced to look at this again and construct a new mechanism for calculating how the benefits can be removed more fairly - i.e, not punshing single earner households so blatantly.

I don't really understand why the government essentially pay people to breed in the first place, but given that the principle of CB isn't going anywhere I'd restate my view from another thread that it should be capped at two children per family.

[peterms]

I don't really understand why the government essentially pay people to breed in the first place, but given that the principle of CB isn't going anywhere I'd restate my view from another thread that it should be capped at two children per family.

If we have fewer children, we will have quite an unbalanced population. The change in demographics caused by the ageing population is significant, and if the balance shifts even further through discouraging, or not encouraging having children, we will see some problems down the line.

Already Japan is developing robots to deliver personal care to all those old people, because they are running short of humans to do it. Here, the discussion has been more about the problem of a shrinking tax base supporting a massive increase in pension costs and healthcare, driven by those demographic changes.

[markavfc40]

Just watched a live interview with Cameron on BBC. When asked about the fact that bankers are being paid 7 billion pound in bonuses he said Osbourne wouldn't idly stand by if the banks paid bonuses without lending to small businesses. Unfortunately that is exactly what Osbourne is doing.

Its an absolute disgrace whilst many are suffering in this country the banks are paying out these astronomical amounts in bonuses.

[claret75]

About the deal with the Child Benefit cuts (which doesn't affect me but...). At first I thought it sounded just plain wrong to be cutting it from single earners over 44k and not 2 earners on 43k each (for example), but looking at it more closely , it doesn't seem so unfair. Just because 2 earners are on almost double what a single earner might be on, doesn't mean they'd any better off does it? if you do the maths and divide the wealth up between 2, those parents will be on the same amount each that a single earner would be on, no better off.

eg. single parent earns 44k and takes the cut

2 earners earn 86k between them - divide it by 2 - 43k each and are comparatively worse off than the single earner.

Single earners probably have to pay a little more out on bills, rent etc. but I'm not sure they'd have to pay too much more than 2 earners in a bigger property.

Anyway, i think it's a good thing, if I was earning 44k, i wouldn't expect to be in receipt of Child Benefit, I was surprised to see that families were tbh.

[snowychap]

No doubt the faithful will be elated about the benefit cap, and the prospect of driving unemployed vagrants from the parish

...

We're all in this together.

Edit: I think you've copied the wrong url for your link, Peter. Did you mean this one: grauniad link?

And something else to throw in to the mix (from here) with the possible increase in homeless families:

Two out of every three homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England live in London. The number of recorded homeless households in temporary accommodation in the city at the end of March 2006 totalled over 60,000 households. In London, approximately two-thirds of homeless households in temporary accommodation include a pregnant woman or dependent children, which is similar to the make-up of homeless households in temporary accommodation in the rest of the country.

In 2005/06, 47% of new social lettings in London were made to statutorily homeless households living in temporary accommodation, double the rate for England. In London, the length of stay in temporary accommodation – hostels, bed-and-breakfast or short term lets - is much more protracted than elsewhere.

Interviewees and focus group participants who had experienced living in temporary accommodation found it a debilitating experience.

Edit 2: From the grauniad article, though:

A survey by London councils showed 60% of landlords would not lower the rent if the tenant could not pay due to changes in LHA entitlement. If the shortfall in rent rose to more than £20 per week, almost all landlords said they would evict the tenant or not renew the tenancy.

Tenants are then likely to warn councils they are in danger of becoming homeless, and councils will be under a duty to find them temporary accommodation or relocate them to a less expensive property.

There is growing speculation that the Treasury will announce changes to the homelessness legislation in a fortnight, possibly reducing the "local connection" rule that requires councils to house homeless applicant if they have a connection to the area. This would make it easier to shift unemployed claimants out of London.

[snowychap]

Just because 2 earners are on almost double what a single earner might be on, doesn't mean they'd any better off does it?

Yes it does. Their household income is almost twice what the other's household income is.

... if you do the maths and divide the wealth up between 2...

Why would you do that?

They live in the same household. People are comparing household income.

On the idea of changing child benefit rules: I happen to agree with the means testing of child benefit; I know it's not terribly popular with some as I've had the discussion on here before and I do understand the potential adverse effects on middle-class support for welfare (though I'd have thought this would rely more upon universal non cash benefits, the quality of these and ensuring that people understand that all of these things make up the 'welfare state').

This proposal, though, is utterly bizarre. Tories are defending it on cost issues (means testing, they acknowledge, is a costly business - I wonder how they intend to apply that principle to the 'universal credit' system?) and it being 'simple' to administer (they genuinely just hope that any higher rate taxpayer stops claiming child benefit).

Obviously, if the potential savings from introducing this scheme are only around £1,000m a year then they couldn't do it properly (i.e. by means testing) and still sell it as either a decent saving or as a (relatively) substantial policy.

Imagine then coming out with this announcement and saying that this would save £100m a year?

And, they'll also be able to remind us of this policy in a couple of weeks time.

[claret75]

Just because 2 earners are on almost double what a single earner might be on, doesn't mean they'd any better off does it?

Yes it does. Their household income is almost twice what the other's household income is.

... if you do the maths and divide the wealth up between 2...

Why would you do that?

They live in the same household. People are comparing household income.

On the idea of changing child benefit rules: I happen to agree with the means testing of child benefit; I know it's not terribly popular with some as I've had the discussion on here before and I do understand the potential adverse effects on middle-class support for welfare (though I'd have thought this would rely more upon universal non cash benefits, the quality of these and ensuring that people understand that all of these things make up the 'welfare state').

This proposal, though, is utterly bizarre. Tories are defending it on cost issues (means testing, they acknowledge, is a costly business - I wonder how they intend to apply that principle to the 'universal credit' system?) and it being 'simple' to administer (they genuinely just hope that any higher rate taxpayer stops claiming child benefit).

Obviously, if the potential savings from introducing this scheme are only around £1,000m a year then they couldn't do it properly (i.e. by means testing) and still sell it as either a decent saving or as a (relatively) substantial policy.

Imagine then coming out with this announcement and saying that this would save £100m a year?

And, they'll also be able to remind us of this policy in a couple of weeks time.

Not sure about means testing, but going back to single earners not being any better off than 2 earners, if 2 people, for example, earned 60k between them, but neither earned over the 44k and a single earner earns over 44k, that would make the single earner, individually better off than the 2 parent household.

This would then make sense to just cut the benefit for the single earner wouldn't it?

[Risso]

Not sure about means testing, but going back to single earners not being any better off than 2 earners, if 2 people, for example, earned 60k between them, but neither earned over the 44k and a single earner earns over 44k, that would make the single earner, individually better off than the 2 parent household.

This would then make sense to just cut the benefit for the single earner wouldn't it?

Er what?

£60K is more than £44K isn't it?

[snowychap]

Not sure about means testing, but going back to single earners not being any better off than 2 earners, if 2 people, for example, earned 60k between them, but neither earned over the 44k and a single earner earns over 44k, that would make the single earner, individually better off than the 2 parent household.

What on earth does the income per earner matter?

Household income is household income no matter the number of sources. :?

As per my previous post, in response to this comment:

... if you do the maths and divide the wealth up between 2...

Why would you do that?

They live in the same household (or rather as members of the same houshold, to be more precise). People are comparing household income.

[thetrees]

Daft question.

I pay higher rate tax.

My wife is a 'homemaker' with no income, who claims no benefits (and for whom I get no tax relief)

Our children are both of ours.

I can't claim child benefit for them, but can my wife?

[claret75]

Not sure about means testing, but going back to single earners not being any better off than 2 earners, if 2 people, for example, earned 60k between them, but neither earned over the 44k and a single earner earns over 44k, that would make the single earner, individually better off than the 2 parent household.

What on earth does the income per earner matter?

Household income is household income no matter the number of sources. :?

As per my previous post, in response to this comment:

... if you do the maths and divide the wealth up between 2...

Why would you do that?

They live in the same household (or rather as members of the same houshold, to be more precise). People are comparing household income.

But we should be looking at income per earner rather than household income shouldn't we? If a single earner of 44k makes more than the average income of a 2 earner household, neither of who earn 44k, why is it unfair that they should bear the benefit cut? After all, they have more money for themselves than the 2 earner household does individually, so should have extra cash to spend on their child and be less needy than the 2 parent household.

Just because there's more money coming into a household, doesn't mean that household is any better off than the single earner.

[snowychap]

Daft question.

I pay higher rate tax.

My wife is a 'homemaker' with no income, who claims no benefits (and for whom I get no tax relief)

Our children are both of ours.

I can't claim child benefit for them, but can my wife?

I believe the principle is the following: those caring for children can claim child benefit (it is paid to the primer carer which is usually the mother).

[Awol]

Just because there's more money coming into a household, doesn't mean that household is any better off than the single earner.

Got to say mate, I think what you're saying is self evidently wrong.

[jonno_2004]

Someone I know can't claim any benefits at all at present (she's due to give birth (as a single mum) in 3 months) because she's actually worked in the past few years, yet if she had not of worked, she could.

[snowychap]

But we should be looking at income per earner rather than household income shouldn't we?

Why? Do you not understand the concept of household income?

In your household are your finances and Jellybean's finances completely separate?

If a single earner of 44k makes more than the average income of a 2 earner household, neither of who earn 44k, why is it unfair that they should bear the benefit cut? After all, they have more money for themselves than the 2 earner household does individually, so should have extra cash to spend on their child and be less needy than the 2 parent household.

I think that your first mistake is equating two earners with two parents.

Just because there's more money coming into a household, doesn't mean that household is any better off than the single earner.

It means that the household with a higher income is the household with a higher income.

I'm not sure what your definition of 'better off' is as you seem to have gone on about disposable income per individual earner and then something about being 'needy'?

Most people would quite simply see a household income as a reliable measure of how well-off a household was (allowing for the difference in the cost of living).

A family of four (two parents earning £40k each and two children of 8 & 10) v a family of three (one parent earning £44k and two children of 8 & 10).

The marginal costs of the extra working parent would not consume all of the extra income.

If you believe that the latter family is better off than the first then I'm amazed.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to get around to pointing out that if the benefit were based on a level of household income then some two parent households might well lose out, relatively, in comparison to single parent households then, at a push, there is a bit of a point.

Edit: Though, reconsidering my last comment, I'd have thought most of that would get swallowed up by the increased costs of child care for a one parent family where that parent is working.

[Clarry]

Just because there's more money coming into a household, doesn't mean that household is any better off than the single earner.

Three beans, plus one bean equals?

Some beans.

[Risso]

Just because there's more money coming into a household, doesn't mean that household is any better off than the single earner.

How do you arrive at that exactly? Most households just have the one mortgage and one set of bills etc.

[dundeevilla]

This child tax policy is ill-thought out and so imcompetently executed, it's laughable.

Makes me fear what's coming down the road under this pair of 'in it together' nice-but-dims.