Privatisation of national industries

[patricks148]

People claiming Unemployment related benefits in 1986 was 3.1 million.
People claiming unemployment related benefits in 2016 was 0.8 million.

again that's unemployment again... but thats not my point.

Chris d was making out that selling all the council houses was a positive because of the number of people on benefits.... a few years before Maggie came to power Unemployment was at its lowest level ever..

and i imagine.. that paying the housing benefit he mentioned in his post to make that point would have cost the economy less than paying the amount of private landlords we do today... buts that's progress for you

 

[SocketRocket]

People claiming Unemployment related benefits in 1986 was 3.1 million.
People claiming unemployment related benefits in 2016 was 0.8 million.

But that's not a true reflection on the benefits being paid. In 1986 their was not the raft of benefits like tax credits, income support, JSA etc that were brought in under Blair and Brown.

 

[Fyldewhite]

But that's not a true reflection on the benefits being paid. In 1986 their was not the raft of benefits like tax credits, income support, JSA etc that were brought in under Blair and Brown.

Er not quite accurate. Family Income Supplement changed to Family Credit (which was intended to be a tax credit but never was) in 1988 the basic idea for the tax credits introduced in 2003 had been knocking around for over a decade and was originally a Tory policy. Income Support was also introduced in 1988 and replaced Supplementary Benefit but was effectively the same thing. JSA was introduced in 1996 and was effectively a rebadge of the old Unemployment Benefit.

Housing Benefit is by far the biggest increase in drain on central government benefits and very much pertinent to the Council House issue. A massive increase in claimants being forced into the private rented sector along with lack of proper rent controls and the surge in prices particularly in the south east has resulted in MASSIVE amounts of money from the welfare budget being paid DIRECTLY to private landlords. For every Daily Mail shock/horror headline you see of a family "getting £30k a year" on benefits you can probably count half that as housing benefit going out of the system and supporting nobody except multi property owning landlords. Not knocking Landords (I'm one myself) but the system was not designed to work the way it has ended up and costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune. Also not much to do with party politics, it's just broken and has been through successive governments for 30 odd years....and UC won't fix it either.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Er not quite accurate. Family Income Supplement changed to Family Credit (which was intended to be a tax credit but never was) in 1988 the basic idea for the tax credits introduced in 2003 had been knocking around for over a decade and was originally a Tory policy. Income Support was also introduced in 1988 and replaced Supplementary Benefit but was effectively the same thing. JSA was introduced in 1996 and was effectively a rebadge of the old Unemployment Benefit.

Housing Benefit is by far the biggest increase in drain on central government benefits and very much pertinent to the Council House issue. A massive increase in claimants being forced into the private rented sector along with lack of proper rent controls and the surge in prices particularly in the south east has resulted in MASSIVE amounts of money from the welfare budget being paid DIRECTLY to private landlords. For every Daily Mail shock/horror headline you see of a family "getting £30k a year" on benefits you can probably count half that as housing benefit going out of the system and supporting nobody except multi property owning landlords. Not knocking Landords (I'm one myself) but the system was not designed to work the way it has ended up and costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune. Also not much to do with party politics, it's just broken and has been through successive governments for 30 odd years....and UC won't fix it either.

.......And a totally skewed SE England housing market means that the poorer regions of the UK pay a fortune in subsidy to the richest region.

 

[SocketRocket]

Er not quite accurate. Family Income Supplement changed to Family Credit (which was intended to be a tax credit but never was) in 1988 the basic idea for the tax credits introduced in 2003 had been knocking around for over a decade and was originally a Tory policy. Income Support was also introduced in 1988 and replaced Supplementary Benefit but was effectively the same thing. JSA was introduced in 1996 and was effectively a rebadge of the old Unemployment Benefit.

Housing Benefit is by far the biggest increase in drain on central government benefits and very much pertinent to the Council House issue. A massive increase in claimants being forced into the private rented sector along with lack of proper rent controls and the surge in prices particularly in the south east has resulted in MASSIVE amounts of money from the welfare budget being paid DIRECTLY to private landlords. For every Daily Mail shock/horror headline you see of a family "getting £30k a year" on benefits you can probably count half that as housing benefit going out of the system and supporting nobody except multi property owning landlords. Not knocking Landords (I'm one myself) but the system was not designed to work the way it has ended up and costs the taxpayer an absolute fortune. Also not much to do with party politics, it's just broken and has been through successive governments for 30 odd years....and UC won't fix it either.

Welfare costs went up 40% under Browns watch.

 

[chrisd]

You are forgetting the Tennant's paid rent... That's what paid for the wages and upkeep.

You are forgetting that a huge number of tenants were on benefits and the rent was also cheap by comparison to the cost of buying, particularly in the early '70's when mortgage rates were around 12%

My point about benefits in the 80's was solely an answer to Patrick's posting that the rental income paid the councils redecorating and maintenance bills.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

.......And a totally skewed SE England housing market means that the poorer regions of the UK pay a fortune in subsidy to the richest region.

Never takes long for that old chestnut to show its ugly head....
Should those in the SouthEast also be complaining about the levels and quantities of unemployment benefit paid to those "poor" areas because the heavy industries have shut down? No, of course not. We are one country and everything should be evened out.

For what it's worth, housing benefit is now paid to the claimant and not the private landlord. That has led to a raft of private landlords refusing to rent to social based tenants because they aren't sure they will be paid the rent monies we as a state give to the tenant. Another total disaster idea.

 

[chrisd]

Never takes long for that old chestnut to show its ugly head....
Should those in the SouthEast also be complaining about the levels and quantities of unemployment benefit paid to those "poor" areas because the heavy industries have shut down? No, of course not. We are one country and everything should be evened out.

For what it's worth, housing benefit is now paid to the claimant and not the private landlord. That has led to a raft of private landlords refusing to rent to social based tenants because they aren't sure they will be paid the rent monies we as a state give to the tenant. Another total disaster idea.

Also we in the South East pay hugely more for our houses, higher business rates, more wages to staff etc etc and we pay to keep whole swathes of communities in some psrts of the UK where generations of families have never worked a day in their lives -

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Also we in the South East pay hugely more for our houses, higher business rates, more wages to staff etc etc and we pay to keep whole swathes of communities in some psrts of the UK where generations of families have never worked a day in their lives -

And don't forget we also pay more for our golf memberships

 

[Fyldewhite]

Welfare costs went up 40% under Browns watch.

Yes, and a large part of that was to increase benefits for working age families and children. To give those at the bottom of the social scale a little more. To encourage people into work and to make work pay. Most of these increases were directed at the low paid, not the unemployed, people earning 15/20/25/30k. Families and single parents with children who are trying to make ends meet and doing all they can to support themselves. You seem to think this is a bad thing?

 

[Hobbit]

Yes, and a large part of that was to increase benefits for working age families and children. To give those at the bottom of the social scale a little more. To encourage people into work and to make work pay. Most of these increases were directed at the low paid, not the unemployed, people earning 15/20/25/30k. Families and single parents with children who are trying to make ends meet and doing all they can to support themselves. You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Yes I do think it is a bad thing. I'd prefer the government to subsidise industries to keep them competitive, which allows them to pay higher wages. But that's not allowed in the EU. More recent studies have shown that minimum wages and zero hours contracts(started in the EU many years ago) have been to the detriment of the standard of living.

Paying benefits to low paid workers doesn't subsidise(support) industry directly, it allows them to pay poor wages. Better to up the wages, leading to more taxes.

 

[bigslice]

Never takes long for that old chestnut to show its ugly head....
Should those in the SouthEast also be complaining about the levels and quantities of unemployment benefit paid to those "poor" areas because the heavy industries have shut down? No, of course not. We are one country and everything should be evened out.

For what it's worth, housing benefit is now paid to the claimant and not the private landlord. That has led to a raft of private landlords refusing to rent to social based tenants because they aren't sure they will be paid the rent monies we as a state give to the tenant. Another total disaster idea.

It can also be paid direct to landlord

 

[Fyldewhite]

Yes I do think it is a bad thing. I'd prefer the government to subsidise industries to keep them competitive, which allows them to pay higher wages. But that's not allowed in the EU. More recent studies have shown that minimum wages and zero hours contracts(started in the EU many years ago) have been to the detriment of the standard of living.

Paying benefits to low paid workers doesn't subsidise(support) industry directly, it allows them to pay poor wages. Better to up the wages, leading to more taxes.

So we should scrap tax credits then and leave it to "the market" to pick up the slack? That'll happen

I'm not a massive fan of Tax Credits btw. They have led to wages being suppressed and seen by employers as a wage subsidy for their benefit rather than the employee....especially in smaller empoyers. I was just trying to illustrate that SR's post above saying it "went up 40% on Brown's watch" was actually a stated objective of the 1997 election win and it is far, far too simplistic to say increase in welfare spending = bad.

 

[Hobbit]

So we should scrap tax credits then and leave it to "the market" to pick up the slack? That'll happen

I'm not a massive fan of Tax Credits btw. They have led to wages being suppressed and seen by employers as a wage subsidy for their benefit rather than the employee....especially in smaller empoyers. I was just trying to illustrate that SR's post above saying it "went up 40% on Brown's watch" was actually a stated objective of the 1997 election win and it is far, far too simplistic to say increase in welfare spending = bad.

I don't think it should be left to the market. But imagine going to a particular industry and offering a decent subsidy providing they increase wages. The business becomes more successful, staff are also more motivated, profits go up and the business is weaned off some of the subsidy.

 

[SocketRocket]

Yes, and a large part of that was to increase benefits for working age families and children. To give those at the bottom of the social scale a little more. To encourage people into work and to make work pay. Most of these increases were directed at the low paid, not the unemployed, people earning 15/20/25/30k. Families and single parents with children who are trying to make ends meet and doing all they can to support themselves. You seem to think this is a bad thing?

Yes I do. I see no good in subsidising low pay through benefits, all this does is encourage Employers to pay low wages and impose zero hour contracts. Since welfare was increased by this amount has it actually improved the lives of the lower paid or given more time off work, I dont think so, all it has achieved is lower wages and people forced to need benefits to get by. While we are on the subject I would also point out that the other side of this double edged sword was the policy of bringing in low skilled immigrants who are happy to work for these low wages as they are much higher than in their own countries and our top up benefits make coming to the UK double attractive while pushing low paid Brits noses into poverty.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Yes I do think it is a bad thing. I'd prefer the government to subsidise industries to keep them competitive, which allows them to pay higher wages. But that's not allowed in the EU. More recent studies have shown that minimum wages and zero hours contracts(started in the EU many years ago) have been to the detriment of the standard of living.

Paying benefits to low paid workers doesn't subsidise(support) industry directly, it allows them to pay poor wages. Better to up the wages, leading to more taxes.

Any chance of links to back up this claim?

As seems to me that in most EU countries zero hours contracts are unknown, heavily regulated or banned https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/

 

[Fyldewhite]

Yes I do. I see no good in subsidising low pay through benefits, all this does is encourage Employers to pay low wages and impose zero hour contracts. Since welfare was increased by this amount has it actually improved the lives of the lower paid or given more time off work, I dont think so, all it has achieved is lower wages and people forced to need benefits to get by. While we are on the subject I would also point out that the other side of this double edged sword was the policy of bringing in low skilled immigrants who are happy to work for these low wages as they are much higher than in their own countries and our top up benefits make coming to the UK double attractive while pushing low paid Brits noses into poverty.

My oh my, you really are a one trick pony aren't you? I actually feel sorry for you. So much anger. As usual you bring a complex issue down to simple soundbites that say a lot more about you than adding anything to the argument.

 

[shagster]

if the same stats were used to calculate unemployment now as in the late 70's and early 80's people would be in for a big shock
selling off of council stock was a disgrace, and most of the money did not go to local council
benefits now have to pay for sky high rents which is a large drain on the welfare
as for selling off our utillites, well what can you say, the very reason capitalism is a joke, it shafts most people
we need a government with real balls to take back the utillities, and start a building programme of affordable housing for both private or council use and invest in industry
it needs to utilise waste ground and redevelop run down areas, stop building on flood plains and actually have a plan for the long term, not short term knee jerk politics that we have with the current set of clowns.

 

[ColchesterFC]

I wonder how many of those bemoaning the high costs of rent from the welfare budget were against the so called "bedroom tax". It seems that the government can't win. Either the government carries on paying all the high rents or they try to bring down costs by putting families in suitably sized homes. Why should a family with two sons be in a four bed house? Let the kids share a bedroom and save a few hundred quid a month by putting them in a two bed house. Multiply that by a few thousand families and the savings start stacking up.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Also we in the South East pay hugely more for our houses, higher business rates, more wages to staff etc etc and we pay to keep whole swathes of communities in some psrts of the UK where generations of families have never worked a day in their lives -

Kent?