Austerity or Class War?
 

Amongst the many austerity measures brought in by the current government are a raft of changes designed to completely overhaul the benefits system.

Some of the most controversial changes are to housing benefit. These changes are about to bite as the new financial year begins in April.

On face value the changes sound like they are an attempt to make the system fairer. certainly the word fairness gets used an awul lot in the discussions. It is unfair, say ministers, that a family in receipt of benefits should be able to live in a house and area which ordinary working families could not hope to afford. So, a hard cap on total payments for housing benefits has been introduced. Rather than than housing allowances being tagged wholly to the value of rents in the are, theynow take account of that local value but are hardcapped.

In the South, and particularly in London, this effectively prices housing benefit claimants out of the private rental market entirely and there is a woefully low number of social houses available.

At the same time, a second limit has been placed on housing benefit, in what has bene termed in the press a 'bedroom tax'. If a house is under occupied housing benefit will be reduced for every unoccupied bedroom.

The trouble is that a) families change their composition as people grow up, move out, move in, die, separate, divorce etc and this effectively forces a house change with any family change resulting in a spare bedroom. This might include cases of family breakdown, where a father has a room for their child to stay in at weekends, but whose residence is counted as elsewhere and therefore...the 'bedroom tax' applies. In the event of bereavement (either a partner, or a parent of adult child) there's a year's grace before it kicks in.

And b) there aren't enough different sized houses available in the social sector for those people to move into. Thus pushing them onto the private sector where the prices soar and the state of the housing is barely regulated in practice.

Alongside these changes are changes to Council tax benefits which will see many families currently exempt become liable for a portion of that tax. As well as changes to the levels of other benefits. And currnetly they're bringing in a cap on the rate at which benefits rise (1%) because, we are told , it is unfair that benefits are rising at a higher rate than wages.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/fe...n-benefits-cap


Fair, it's all about what's fair. Except that it isn't really.

Firstly a lot of the people claiming those benefits are actually not unemployed, they're on low wages. So not only have their wages all but frozen, now their benefits are also being capped, and their homes rendered untenable.

Secondly, the cost to the tax payer of maintaining those families in their current homes is often cited as a large part of the benefits bill which needs to be trimmed; except that the costs of dealing with this are much greater if the current projections are to be believed.

Is that really what we want for our nation? Whole regions and the capital city set aside for one economic class? And the service workers...how far will theyhave to commute to serve those who can afford to live there?

It isn't just the South. The caps and cuts are forcing high numbers of individuals and families out of their current housing and onto an already overburdened and hard to regulate private sector, with many projected to become effectively homeless (living in shelters, low rent hotels, sleeping on family's couches).
Some estimates coming from the local authorities in the North suggest there may be a cost half a billion to their region.

There aren't enough houses of the right size to accomodate all the different family variations perfectly. Not even taking social and private housing together. It is going to cost the country millions to disrupt and distress individuals and families (single people under the age of 30 will no longer be helped to the tune of a one room house or flat, now they'll only be given enough for a room in a shared house) who are already on the edge.

The numbers of people resorting to foodbanks is at a staggering all time high in this country. Many of these people are employed.

Again and again we hear about fairness, setting us against them. Them being anybody poorer than Us. We hear about the 'scroungers' versus the 'strivers'. We hear about unemployed layabouts twitching the curtains of their super lovely large houses as good decent ordinary people struggle out in the winter weather to work and not be able to afford that nice house themselves.

Except, that we're all pretty much the same. The vast majority of people claiming out of work benefits are back in work within weeks or months of being unemployed. It's a small minority who are long term unemployed, yet they have been set up to characterise the entirety.

Of that small minority, a large percentage are people with serious and genuine barriers to employment. People who'd have trouble getting and holding a job in a time of plenty and confidence. In a climate of high unemployment, insecure jobs and low wages, they don't stand a bloody chance and hammering them for continuing not to have a job is pointless cruelty.

Most of the people claiming benefits are either in work, temporarily claiming out of work benefits, or have genuine need to be permanently supported (for example in the caseof disability).

But the fairness debate is so frustrating. Again and again people show that they are in favour of cuts. damn right! To other people's benefits. Everyone has someone to point at and say, yes, but that's not fair. And all of us struggle more because of it. It is a false divide that we are being offered, betwen the deserving and undeserving poor, between the shiftless and respectable, between the worthy and the unworthy of support.

And it's a false economy. It costs us more to engage in this rampant cruelty, than it does to offer genuine and well-funded support. Clever though. As the costs mount the paymasters can say....look, the benefits system is breaking....it is costing too much we must cut. And cut. And reshape. Until it becomes a creaking and broken thing...and they can say again, look it is broken, it costs too much it is inefficient, we must reshape and cut. Rinse and repeat.

I'm still churned up about this. It just makes no sense.

We are intentionally creating a stream of virtual refugees from one part of the country to another. 1000s of families being moved from this borough in the South to that borough in the North, and what about the families currently being displaced in the boroughs they are being shunted to? The housing in those areas is about to be put under terrible strain by the cuts they themselves are facing, they also have waiting lists and inadequate housing stock and now they're to absorb 1000's of families on top of that.

Families that have managed to get through breakdowns and divorces and settle in some way that allows their children to have both parents now face further disruption as dad can no longer keep a bed for them. Children currently settled in schools will face disruption to their education as theymove and settle into a new area and new school.

Local services will be expected topick up the tab but they do so in the middle of having their budgets cut by 20 and 30 %.

Meanwhile back to work programmes force unemployed youngsters to work for their benefits in private companies, who frankly should be fucking employing people to do that work. The theoretical 'training' doesn't materialise and Poundstretchers gets 150 hours of free worker at the tax payer's expense.

In work benefits, out of work benefits, wages stagnating, cuts to the left of us, cuts to the right of us, but the wealthy get tax breaks.

It's sort of nice to know that we, over here, are in the same boat.

I've been hearing all kinds of horrible things that are going to happen. My mom's Rx went from about 55$ (In Dec. 2012) to 135.00$ because, you know, it's the new year and benes change every year. She said, "well, when I run out I just won't re-new the prescription," and believe me, it's not b/c they can't afford it; it's because my dad would give her shit over it and I think she secretly wants to die anyway. God, that's hard to admit, but I think she does.

It sounds like the bad guys on both sides of the pond have been exchanging tips. Just a few observations from the American side:


At least you guys in the UK aren't being presented with potential changes/overhauls every couple of weeks the way the US has lately. The state of low income housing in the US is a national disgrace. Obama had already made cuts to various "entitlement” programs during his first term in office. Housing has been especially hard hit. As it now stands, housing vouchers are scarcer than hens’ teeth and more precious than rubies. Wait lists wind down the halls of time for two, three, five years and more. And that’s before any effects of the sequester, the coming government shut-down, etc., etc.

I’ve read estimates that range from 100,000 to 350,000 households being put out on the streets over the next 10 years or less thanks to cuts in federal housing programs. These household members include the elderly, the disabled, children from low income families, and disabled veterans, etc. The sequester will hit the Department of Housing and Urban Authority (HUD) very hard.

Today I called the local Housing Authority just to find out where we all stand. Looks like we’re OK for March, but come the cruelest month, all bets are off. Well, at least April should be slightly warmer. Maybe.


One thing about Public Housing in the US, very few people think that those who live there are getting some kind of ace deal. Most Americans do not harbor a desire to move into the so-called projects in our urban areas and a single family voucher is not much envied, either. The system is distinctly unfair to the poor who are forced to make use of it, so no one here is too concerned with fairness. Our poor deserve what they get - very little.

Although the system here uses something called the "fair market value" for setting allowed rental prices, don't let that blatent misnomer mislead you. Fair market value equals a monthly rental payment that will allow you to lease a run down trailer next to a meth lab.


The same thing is true here, and not only in big cities, but in almost any area where jobs are available. For example, the local housing authority will cover the rent for a ramshackle apartment in a town where the unemployment is near 20%, but woe to anyone wishing to move 50 miles down the road to a town where a person just might find a job. THERE the 'fair market" is $650/month against an average real world cost of $1500 or so for a modest two bedroom home. $650 in THAT town might get you a storage shed - if you're lucky.

Nice. Here they go that even one better. If a person moves out of a Section 8 rental, the entire family ends up being displaced. Non family members are not allowed to live together, so you can't just put an ad in the paper to fill your vacancy.

Yep, exactly. I don't see how any rational observer in EITHER of our countries view these sorts of policies and attitudes as anything BUT class warfare.

And in the US, there's a big racial component, as well. Here everyone who is on housing assistance or foodstamps is an African American welfare queen who uses her foodstamps for lobster dinners or else to buy meth. If you gave her and her family decent housing, they'd just turn it into yet one more crack house. Oh, and let's not even get started on all those illegals who get on the US gov't tit before the water from the Rio Grande is even dried from their backs. Why should we sacrifice our poor, hard-working millionaires to support people like THAT? Oh, grrr!

I'm with you all the way, girlfriend!

Irony (aka payback is a bitch) by the other side...

If you wish to see austerity (aka poverty) in the US,
visit your nearest government supported Indian/Native American Reservation.

If you wish to see class warfare, visit the nearest (tribal) casino.
The tribes are winning this war in a big way.
The $ proceeds from gambling are pulling large sums over to the tribes,
and tribal health clinics are providing free health care to their members.

If you wish to see more irony... watch for the TV commercials
about "paycheck loans" being directed to "white" audiences.
It's sort of a reverse "down at the pawn shop".

'Rents are both voting UKIP next election.
OMG.
Makes me want to spit.
But I live in their house.

I takeit your Mum's feeling somewhat betrayed by the lib Dems then?

We're all in this together they tell us from on high. Workers have had to cut their cloth, so why not the 'shirkers' too? Never mind that the unemployed are struggling more than ever to keep a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. never mind, even, that workers/shirkers divide is a false one, with the majority of benefits claimants supplementing low paid work.

We're all in this together. The pain must be shared. All must bear the taste the medicine.

Unless of course one is a banker.

When you consider that I pay £375 a month for a tiny 1 bedroom house in the North where prices are considerably lower than in the South, a cap of £2000 a month across all the different strands of benefit (Housing benefit, council tax benefit, unemployment benefit etc) is cripplingly low for a family of four, say, in the south whose rent might head up past £1000 p/month for a two bed house with the kids sharing a bedroom.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-all-together

It all goes to show that the upper 1% globally are continuing to entrench themselves in a system with two sets of rules - one for themselves and another for everyone else. The uber wealthy have no loyalty to any nation - including any nation that they are nominally citizens of. At most, their allegiance is to the soil upon which their off shore banks are built.

For those in the loftiest income brackets, ethics or a sense of moral values is a handicap - a character defect to be overcome, rather than a sense of integrity to be admired. It's all a game played by the laws of the jungle in a quest for ever more money and power. And there can never be enough of either if you are one of the top players.

The rest of the populance seems to have sunk into a deep apathy, rather than to make any attempt to change or even recognize the downward trajectory that the greed of a few has placed us upon. The people need to wake up before it's too late - if it's not already.

But they are.;)

Abigail has just got herself a two bedroom flat.
I need to squeeze out some twins too.

That's one of the big problems. Not enough one bed places for singletons or couples without childer.

I should bloody well hope she's been given a 2 bed place with twin babbas to cope with.

Ha! nice find Bruceybabes.

Yeah - I don't resent it - six people in a three bedroom house is overcrowding.

I just have a flip-flop reaction to it. I've been applying for four years now. But we're three people (and two cats) in a three-bed. I just don't qualify on any count.

Mum wants me out of the house.
In fact she wants me in the local mental hospital to sort out my drinking.
And I know it. So it's tough.

At present I'm being a great daughter. Every day I ask what I can do, and when and how.
Shoulda been doing that all along, but I lost my way when I was diagnised with liver damage.
And as of tomorrow, despite what Sexobon thinks, I'm long term sober. So it should all sort itself out. You never know with Mum though - she doesn't necessarily need a reason to kick off. Just her own anger and frustration. And Dad is a whole other story... he's become quite angry with the Alzheimers. He made me cry the other day. Not something I do very oftren.

Sundae, my uncle has dementia and alzheimers. He's quite violent now and in full time care because my aunt can't care for him.

It's a very difficult journey for any family. Frustrating, frightening and just plain old scary. I feel really sorry for you and your Mum having to deal with it every day. Must be hard. and very painful to watch.

Don't worry about sexo. He's just being his usual self. What else can you expect of anyone? ;)

Niceness?

umm...from Sexobon?

I think he thinks he's being nice in his own way. I don't agree that he is, but I believe it's what he thinks none the less. ;)

No. I'd say he thinks he's being helpful, open and straightforward, which he considers to be more useful than nice in this context.

You're probably right Dana. Either way, I don't think he's trying to be nasty on purpose. I actually like his persona on here most of the time, except when he's being like that.

If it was addressed to someone else I'd probably agree.
Still not great at the whole accepting criticism thing, constructive or otherwise.

No one likes criticism Sundae. Even if it is constructive.

On a side note, Aden just farted. He's so filthy.

He has no class!

Diz farted on my lap the other night.
He was stood up and everything.
His little hole just pooted out.
Smelled like... well, not Teen Spirit I tell you!

Dirty Botty Boy (well, his bot was clean, but it smelled dirty.)

Having used a Harry Hill phrase may I change the subject please?
No more TV Burp.
I might have mentioned it before. But it breaks my heart.
Harry says no more, no way, nothing. I give up the booze, Harry (real name Matthew) gives up the Burp. One is healthy, one tragic. I need to trawl eBay for DVDs. Not of me drinking.

Alongside all the changes to benefits and tax credits are largescale cuts and changes in funding models for local councils. More and more is being put under the remit of local councils (they will now directly administer and fund council tax benefits for example - meaning some councils will have to reduce those benefits. Suddenly people who were totally exempt will find themselves partially exempt, with a 'small' contribution to pay out of their increasingly low benefits).

So, the councils are being expected to cover more resopnsibilities and areas of provision, with the central element of their funding slashed, under orders from central government to find upwards of 20% budget cuts and also under massive central pressure (under pain of losing elements of funding) to reduce the council tax burden on its residents. So...can't recoup lost funding by increasing tax.

The net result is that a lot of services and avenues of support are collapsing. At exactly the time when they are needed. A lot of the results of austerity are detrimental to our ability to grow our economy.

Here's one example of this:


So...what's the solution? Well, you might think directing some funding towards childcare for low income families might be an excellent start. Thankfully, we have very clever men and women writing these policies and theyhave the solution: allow childminders to look after more children per adult. Bear in mind these are mainly pre-kindergarten infants.

And here's the clincher, here's how the central government gets away with it:

Really? That's their responsibility? How are they supposed to pay for that, with fucking monopoly money?

If it's truly all about local needs and local responsibility, then free up the local councils to raise the money through other means. No, though, we don't do that. All the responsibility and budgeting is local, and all the funding models, ringfences and constraints applied from the centre. More and more gets loaded onto councils and then they are lambasted if they raise tax by more than 1 per cent.

They are breaking councils and then blaming them for being broken.

Not just this government. The Labour government was shoddy on local councils. And back further too. The power devolves to the centre as the responsibility settles on local councils. It's the same with everything at a local level. Under Thatcher, local authorities were required to allow and facilitate people to buy their council houses whilst also banning them from using any o fthat money to build new stock. And then when councils started to experience serious housing problems they got the blame, and they were pushed into handing over control of the housing stock to third party arms length housing associations. Not for profit, but you should see the golden handshakes and hellos. The council is still ultimately responsible for the housing situation though. Thye're the ones with the legal responsibilities.

Even schools. They used to be controlled by local authorities. Now local authorities have to commission education provision. They have no real power in this: there are strict rules over which tender mjst be accepted in a given circumstance and in the event of a decision not being made or being challenged, it goes to the Sec of State to decide. They have very little power once the school is set up and running.

But they are held responsible for the performance of all those schools. In ways that impact on funding. Only if a school has had to go into special measures through utter failure do councils really get any sway and by then it's crisis time and the damage has been done.

It's all sold to us on the grounds of localism. Schools 'freed up' from council control (nowadays controlled by whoever wants to put the money in) and council tax benefits locally decided to take account of specific local needs. But all of it, all of it, makes the whole less accountable to local voters. If the council is genuinely responsible for all of these things, down to funding and management decisions then failure results in councillors losing their seats. Success means them keeping their seats.

Unfortunately that also gives local councils a lot of power and, historically, the capacity to stand up to central government when its policies were highly unpopular and detrimental locally. And that is something successive governments have sought to limit.

Well, lookie here, the day after that post another piece about schools being forced down the academy route (with private 'sponsors').

Bit of a side step from austerity, but it ties in with the above. It's not enough now that schools are generally no longer directly managed by local authorities, even the arms length relationship between councils and schools is too close.

Academies were touted, first by the labour government and now (in a different form) by the current tory led coalition government. as a way of freeing up schools to be more dynamic and responsive, and to bring in expertise and skills from dynamic go-getter types from outside the education scene.


OK. So, a series of unfortunate things, badly timed, set the school onto the path for academy status consideration.

But here's where it gets a bit murky.


It gets worse:

Now, I should point out that Academies aren't private schools. They are state funded. The money brought in by the sponsors is a tiny proportion of the actual cost. And the per pupil cost is met by the tax payer.


So...first convert them all to academies, then 'reclassify academies to the provate sector'.

Hey presto, with the wave of a wand they would privatise the vast majority of education provision in England. Oh, it will still be funded largely through taxation...but with an extra layer of profit built in, as is increasingly the case with healthcare.


Shameless, devious and absolutely deliberate.

Rest of the article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ommand-economy

I am too outraged for rational comment.

This bit makes me want to retch, given the impact of benefits cuts right now:



Meanwhile, here's what the Defence Secretary has to say about further budget cuts to his department:

Fuck me. They want more cuts. The biggest overhaul of the welfare system in decades and swingeing cuts just starting to bite, changes to housing benefit about to take effect, and changes to tax credits and a bunch of other ancillary stuff all kicking off with the new tax year (April), and still they want more. Warnings coming from all the charities, the oversight committees, the various committes looking at the possible impact region to region, despite the explosion of food banks and soup kitchens, which in some areas have become a regular resource for the working poor, never mind those unlucky enough to to find themselves out of work in this climate. Despite report after report showing sky rocketing levels of child hunger, with a majority of teachers in state schools reporting that more children are arriving hungry and without having eaten breakfast.

The support systems are creaking. Those of them that have survived the funding cuts or the drop in donations are reducing what they attempt to do.

And still it's not enough. Still they want more of the burden to fall on those with nothing, or on those working ridiculous hours for minimum wage that still isn't enough, or who work through agencies and don't have regular work (the majority of the much touted rise in employment), or have cancer or went suddenly blind, or care 24/7 for their severely disabled adult children, or were made redundant and at 57 nobody is hiring in their field, and competition for jobs generally is high.

I'm going to bed now. I'm tired of feeling angry.

“I'm going to bed now. I'm tired of feeling angry.”

Indeed.

Americans and Brits sometimes refer to one another as “cousins”, and cousins we are – members of the same dysfunctional family. On both sides of the pond, government is cutting funding for education on every level from pre-school to college. And the bottom line is that kids and society pay the price.

From the results of a national survey conducted by the American Association of School Administrators:

Hmmm… Just as in the UK, local authorities across the US are unable to offset the loss of funding from the federal government. The individual states are barely able to balance their budgets now, never mind come up with the extra funds to offset the effects of the sequester. Again from the AASA:

And just as in the UK, the central government is keeping the bad news under wraps. Wouldn’t want to let parents and communities know what’s coming down the road, in case the ensuing outcry might throw a wrench in their plans:

Let the bastards freeze in the dark of ignorance. Our so-called representative government has decided that children and teachers should be sacrificed in order for federal and state government to fawn over special interests and the upper 1%. Who loves you, baby? Not the kindergartner who can send you two quarters taped inside an envelope. No, our representatives are saving themselves for a torrid affair with Goldman Sachs and the resulting millions of dollars deposited into an off shore account.

I’m tired of feeling angry myself.

We have very similar issues in education here. It makes me despair when I think of it.

As I have mentioned on this board over the years, we have supported the public system by keeping our kids in it and tried to add our little bit of 'social capital' along the way, but it's a losing battle. Even if Aden gets straight A's at the end of this year, he'll be lucky to get the score he needs to get straight into the course he wants simply because he's at a public school. The system is gearing more and more towards the privately educated kids going on to university and professional careers, while public schools are producing the masses of blue and low level white collar workers required to keep the country running.

It's heartbreaking to watch your kids try so hard to achieve the goals they've set for themselves, knowing in your educated, adult mind that it's unlikely they'll succeed no matter how hard they try.

eta: They can still achieve their goals, but it just means they have to work harder for longer. Some would say that will just make them stronger and wiser. I say it's just unfair. Plain and simple.