|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-14-2013, 05:41 AM | #1 | |||||
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by DanaC; 02-14-2013 at 05:53 AM. |
|||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|