'Scroungers' are irrelevant to the 'fairness'/benefits issue. Here's why the government is really obsessed with them

First topic message reminder :

Original including links is at: http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/scroungers-irrelevant-to-fairness-why-govts-really-obsessed-by-them/

Ivanhoe - this is the article you were asking about, although it's evolved slightly.

'Scroungers' are irrelevant to the 'fairness'/benefits issue. Here's why the government is really obsessed with them



I’ve written variously about this Tory-led government’s fetish for demonising the vulnerable in order to facilitate its attacks on their state support. Disabled people, young people, housing benefit claimants, the unemployed – all come under sustained propaganda attack from government spokespeople, echoed by the right-wing press and even, on occasion, by the BBC.

This demonisation usually takes the form of some kind of ‘scrounger’ rhetoric, although the perpetrators will throw in ‘shirker’ or ‘skiver’ occasionally, just to mix it up a little. It’s clearly a tactic aimed at the basest instincts of people who are able, or willing, to believe it and resent the ‘scroungers’ who are supposedly the opposite of the ‘strivers’, or ‘those who work hard and do the right thing’, according to the Tory mantra.

This kind of rhetoric is in every government statement about the ‘Uprating Bill’ that will be voted on today in the Commons, as ministers talk about whether it’s ‘fair that those who don’t work should receive better rises than those who work hard and do the right thing’, or whatever variant they pick for a particular statement.

Of course, the rhetoric has very little basis in fact. Most benefit recipient – 60% – are working people who are so poorly paid by their employers or so exploited by their landlords that they can’t manage without state assistance.

But is any of it true? More to the point, if it is – does it matter? And do the government’s stated reasons for targeting them have anything to do with the real reasons?

There don’t seem to be any firm figures that indicate how many of such people there actually are, but certainly they’re far fewer than the government would like everyone to think.

For example, an article in the Guardian highlights cases in which the government grossly exaggerated ‘scrounger’ issues for political purposes:

Example 1

Ministers had made a big issue – in order to justify their benefits cap – of a supposedly high number of families that were receiving £100,000 a year in housing benefit.

The reality? There were only 5 such families, in the whole country.

Example 2

Ministers briefed that over 1,300 people had been ‘off work for a decade with diarrhoea.

The reality? They were suffering from cancer and other severe bowel diseases.

Anecdotal evidence also seems to back up the idea that people avoiding work by choice are a very small minority. For example, on a discussion forum for social care professionals, in a debate about ‘scroungers’, one wrote:

I expect our experiences depend a lot on the location and teams that we might work in. Personally I see a LOT more people who are not claiming the benefits that they are wholly entitled to. I’ve come across a few families that might have stepped out of the front page of the Daily Mail but that has been very uncommon in my experience.

There’s no real doubt that a small percentage of people living long-term on benefits do so (as the government likes to put it) ‘as a lifestyle choice’. But most of what evidence there is seems to suggest that it really is a very small percentage.

However, I believe that – at least now and for the foreseeable future – their existence is absolutely irrelevant to the benefits issue. Any reference to them by politicians and media as justification for any benefit reduction or cap is absolutely, and deliberately, misleading – and hides a true motive that’s much darker.

Here’s why.

The numbers game

For the sake of argument, and so that no one can accuse me of minimising the issue to make my assertion more convincing, let’s assume that every single one of the long-term unemployed are living on benefits as a ‘lifestyle choice’. It’s a ludicrous proposition, of course, but bear with me for the moment.

The latest ONS statistics indicate that there are 449,000 people who have been on unemployment benefits for 24 months or more. I’m sure you’ll agree that ‘lifestyle scroungers’ are going to be, almost without exception, in this category.

So, if every single person in that category was a ‘scrounger’, choosing to live on benefits, that means we have, at worst, 449,000 scroungers in this country – out of a jobless total of around 2.5 million.

However, the number of available jobs in the whole of the UK – again according to the latest ONS stats – is 489,000. For 2.5 million unemployed people.

This means that, even if you can get someone into every available vacancy, you would still have over 2 million people unemployed. Of course, you never will fill every vacancy – many of those jobs will be vacant because they require special skills and experience that aren’t available, or because they pay so badly that no person in their right mind would want them.

But, again for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the government cuts benefits so drastically that all our notional ‘scroungers’ decide they are going to have to take those jobs – and we’ll assume that they have the necessary skills to do them.

What situation do we then have? Simple: over 2 million people who want to work, and no jobs for them.

Unless and until we reach a ‘full employment’ situation – one in which there is work for every person who wants to work and is capable of working – the ‘lifestyle scroungers’ are absolutely irrelevant to the benefits or ‘fairness’ issues.

In the current situation, where we have more than 5 unemployed people for every available job, every ‘scrounger’ forced into work means one less job for someone who wants to work. Somebody is going to be on benefits – a lot of ‘somebodies’, in fact – even if we had zero scroungers.

The only time when it would be legitimate to spend Parliamentary time and effort even discussing the genuine ‘scroungers’ would be if we ever return to a full-employment situation. However, there’s a massive reason why we won’t in the foreseeable future – and why it’s incredibly hypocritical for anyone to use so-called ‘scroungers’ as an excuse to ‘bash the benefit claimants’ as the government and the right-wing press love to do. It’s tied up in the last 2 sentences of the previous paragraph – but all should become clear shortly.

The ugly truth

For all their ‘striver vs skiver’ rhetoric, right-wingers don’t want everyone in work – and that includes politicians. They just don’t want people to be able to live on benefits in the long-term - for a very specific reason. That’s possibly a shocking thought for you. However, it’s not just my opinion – it’s on record as fact.

In 1997, the Bank of England’s ‘Monetary Policy Committee’ (MPC) met to discuss its business. In the minutes arising from that meeting, an incredibly frank and extremely revealing couple of paragraphs were included:



According to the Bank of England’s MPC, high numbers of long-term unemployed people does not push down wages – to them a desirable thing – to the same extent as numbers in short-term unemployment.

Lots of people unemployed in the short-term means that those in work are more worried about their job-security – and are therefore more likely to tolerate lower wages and less likely to demand increases. High numbers of long-term unemployed are less ‘effective’ in holding the employed to ransom, because the long-term unemployed aren’t as much of a threat to their job tenure.

Another part of the same document talks about a ‘natural level of unemployment’, saying that if

“the level of unemployment [was] below the natural rate, increasing inflation would generally result.”

In other words, a certain level of unemployment is natural and desirable – the wealthy right does not want everybody to have a job.

The Bank of England’s motivation is, notionally at least, a concern that upward pressure on inflation might stoke higher inflation. These concerns have not gone away since 1997. In one of its 2012 reports on inflationary pressures, the MPC stated:

Since the second quarter of 2011, the number of vacancies had been broadly stable while unemployment had increased, suggesting that the unemployed were less able to fill those vacancies.

But for employers, and the politicians they donate to, there’s another, clearer, baser motive.

Greed.

David Cameron, George Osborne, Ian Duncan Smith and co want there to be a lot of people out of work – because that keeps the rest of us ‘in our place’, and stops us expecting pay rises that will reduce fat, corporate profits. Whatever the rhetoric, the fiscal cost of that level of unemployment is perfectly acceptable to the bankers and CEOs, because it bolsters profits and executive salaries. The Bank of England says so.

They just don’t want there to be many long-term unemployed people – because that doesn’t do the job as effectively. So the Tories and their donors have a vested interest in targeting the long-term unemployed – one that has precisely nothing to do with fairness.

To you and me, if we had to choose which of the 2.5 million unemployed people to put into the <500,000 jobs that exist for them, would probably see it as best, fairest and most logical to fill those jobs with people that really want to do them – whether they’ve been unemployed for 6 weeks or 6 years – rather than have them filled by people who don’t really want to do them.

But the government and its wealthy friends have a different agenda. One that’s better served by having only short-term unemployed people who are desperate for work – so that a sword is always hanging over the rest of us that employers can use to dampen our ‘uppity’ expectations of decent pay and conditions.

Scroungers are irrelevant to the issue of benefits and fairness while we have our current level of unemployment. They are not irrelevant to the Tories’ real, strategic but hidden aims – which go against the very same hard-working ‘strivers’ whose side they claim to be on.

When you hear about the vote today, or think about the issues, or consider whether Labour is doing the right thing for the country by voting against the ‘uprating bill’, bear all this in mind.

Labour have there work cut out for them skywalker, refuting all the LIES & Distortion by the Tories . I do not think that Ed Miliband will be Tory Lite in any way shape or form he knows we have to get away from anything that looks like Tory policy, to let the people of the UK if they vote Labour and Ed Miliband it will be FAIR FOR ALL

"Scroungers" is not a word which can have more than one meaning, it is intentionally polemic, judgmental and intended to wound. Though the situation in which it now appears most regularly creates a deep irony - housing benefit. Obviously the otherwise homeless find their situation improved, but the real beneficiaries are buy-to-let landlords whose income is padded by the public purse.

One such has his picture on the front page of The Independent for Saturday 11 January 2014. The charming Fergus Wilson owns 1000 properties in Kent which are rented-out privately, but he has now told all those of his tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit that they will be receiving notice to quit. Happy New Year to you too, Sir.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fergus-wilson-the-landlord-who-wants-to-put-200-families-out-on-the-street-9052651.html?origin=internalSearch

oftenwrong wrote:...The charming Fergus Wilson owns 1000 properties in Kent which are rented-out privately, but he has now told all those of his tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit that they will be receiving notice to quit....

Yes but did you understand the reason why he has done this? Until now he was quite happy renting to the poor and those on benefits because the rent was paid directly to him. He has now been told that the rent will no longer be paid to him but go to the claimant instead. He foresees that a number (significant?) will end up in arrears because they spend the money on other things and he will be left chasing them through the courts and debt collection agencies. He feels, unsurprisingly , that he does not want the bother. This is a direct result of a Tory change AND whilst it is painted as giving more 'freedom of choice' to the claimant it actually is designed to work as a cut in benefit because the benefit becomes grossed up rather than separating the housing cost away from what they receive.

He is making a sensible business decision which has been forced on him by a change in the benefit system that is designed to save money hidden behind the mask of consumer choice.

Let me be frank here, I have moved to rented accommodation and rented out my house, which I cannot currently sell, so that I can be nearer my daughter and grandson. It is about revenue neutral. I have made exactly the same decision as FW. I won't rent to someone on benefit NOW because I have no guarantee of seeing the money and every likelihood of losing significant amounts whilst chasing tenants. WOuld you take the risk? If you would I would then have to class you as terminally stupid. In this time of constraint who willingly throws money away particularly if, like me, you only have a pension?

Yep. Tory policies can make a fascist of almost anyone.

Bellatori wrote:- .
I have made exactly the same decision as FW. I won't rent to someone on benefit NOW because I have no guarantee of seeing the money and every likelihood of losing significant amounts whilst chasing tenants….In this time of constraint who willingly throws money away particularly if, like me, you only have a pension?

Hardly a valid comparison. Fergus Wilson owns about 1,000 properties, I assume that you don’t? You may “only have a pension”, but Wilson is worth about £240 million. He wouldn’t even notice if some people defaulted on their rent. Another difference is that you haven't changed the rules for existing tenancies.

You sound as if you’re condoning Wilson’s behaviour because he is “making a sensible business decision”, regardless of the suffering it may cause. What the bastard is doing may be legal (though it shouldn’t be), but it’s downright immoral. Evicting people when their rent is paid up to date is outrageous and should be against the law.

I expect Wilson is one of those Tories who like to wrap themselves in the union flag, while their party flogs off state assets to foreign companies. He is stereotyping all benefit recipients as people who will get behind with their rent. He wants to replace them with Eastern European migrants because all of them will pay on time. He acknowledges that he’s effectively forcing battered wives to return to their husbands to get beaten up again, but as long as his vast wealth continues to increase, that’s all that matters.

I’d like to know how Wilson came to own so many properties. The article below shows that he doesn’t even maintain them all properly. Scum like him makes me ashamed to be British.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fergus-wilson-the-landlord-who-wants-to-put-200-families-out-on-the-street-9052651.html

Bellatori wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:...The charming Fergus Wilson owns 1000 properties in Kent which are rented-out privately, but he has now told all those of his tenants in receipt of Housing Benefit that they will be receiving notice to quit....

Yes but did you understand the reason why he has done this? Until now he was quite happy renting to the poor and those on benefits because the rent was paid directly to him. He has now been told that the rent will no longer be paid to him but go to the claimant instead. He foresees that a number (significant?) will end up in arrears because they spend the money on other things and he will be left chasing them through the courts and debt collection agencies. He feels, unsurprisingly , that he does not want the bother. This is a direct result of a Tory change AND whilst it is painted as giving more 'freedom of choice' to the claimant it actually is designed to work as a cut in benefit because the benefit becomes grossed up rather than separating the housing cost away from what they receive.

He is making a sensible business decision which has been forced on him by a change in the benefit system that is designed to save money hidden behind the mask of consumer choice.

Let me be frank here, I have moved to rented accommodation and rented out my house, which I cannot currently sell, so that I can be nearer my daughter and grandson. It is about revenue neutral. I have made exactly the same decision as FW. I won't rent to someone on benefit NOW because I have no guarantee of seeing the money and every likelihood of losing significant amounts whilst chasing tenants. WOuld you take the risk? If you would I would then have to class you as terminally stupid. In this time of constraint who willingly throws money away particularly if, like me, you only have a pension?

I think that, in reality, most people would do exactly the same thing. Easy to pontificate when you're not in that position though.

Such heartless attitudes make me hope that the religious descriptions of Hellfire and Eternal Damnation are accurate.

Emotional soundbites and the scramble for the moral high ground aside, it's absolutely inevitable that this policy will make landlords much less inclined to take on and retain tenants who are on benefits. Why do you think landlords rent out properties - to fulfil a deep seated sense of social duty or to make money? This instantly makes the prospect of making money off tenants on benefits a lot more hassle. It's as simple as that really. The landlords that do choose to allow tenants on benefits will probably demand several weeks (or even months) rent in advance.

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:- .
I have made exactly the same decision as FW. I won't rent to someone on benefit NOW because I have no guarantee of seeing the money and every likelihood of losing significant amounts whilst chasing tenants….In this time of constraint who willingly throws money away particularly if, like me, you only have a pension?

Hardly a valid comparison.

Same principle at work, except Wilson's position in light of the changes makes more sense. A small landlord may have a better relationship with their tenant(s) but Wilson won't even have met his. I'm not defending him beyond noting he has a lot to lose and will act accordingly.

Dan Fante wrote:...I think that, in reality, most people would do exactly the same thing. Easy to pontificate when you're not in that position though.

...and we seem to be getting a good portion of that   

The fact is that they completely miss the point. This guy is a fat cat Tory in their eyes so bash away whilst completely missing the real point. Why has he chosen to do this? Calling him names won't change a thing but changing the policy might. I rent out one house. He rents out 1000. In terms of a business decision what is the difference. None. I don't want the hassle and nor does he. I need security of income and cannot afford to be in a situation where my tenant does not pay this month. Should I then go to my landlord and say I cannot pay this month? The previous position where landlords were paid directly gave some security to landlords. This guy will not be the only one who is rethinking taking people on who are on benefits.

Comments about his qualities as a landlord don't figure in this argument. If he fails to maintain the properties then those paying the rent viz. the councils, the DHSS should be on his back. They have enormous buying power but I suspect that they don't want the hassle. Difference is it is what they are paid to do. it would not be the first time the benefits system has failed in its obligations.

I guess that what comes out of this discussion for me, is that we need more social housing, with rents set at a decent level so that less well-off people can afford to rent - making the renting out of domestic property a 'business' proposition, like making the provision of social care, health care, policing, prisons etc etc a 'business' is only going to foster the 'bottom line' thinking -if your livelihood is from renting you will obviously make decisions that protect your income - which is why no-one should be making their living off providing essential services to poorer people

Hi boatlady... the thing is it did used to work. Ivan is painting FW as a successor to Rackman which he probably is not. What has changed is two things the Tories have done which has basically broken the market. They put a cap on rents which did two things. Forced people away from the areas they were brought up in if it happened that the area had gone up market and caused a number of businesses to shrug and rent elsewhere. To give you an example, there are no DHSS tenants in the block of flats that I am in. Most of the 40 are rented and I am in a minority of a few because the vast majority (30+ I would guess) are rented to Chinese students who can easily afford the rents and are probably responsible for pushing my rent up   

So there are now two reasons caused by this government for the disadvantaged not to have housing. The cap on rents the DHSS is allowed to pay and the insecurity because what rent is paid is uncertain to go to the landlord. Maybe the old system was not perfect but at least it kept people in the areas they were brought up in and with a roof over their head.

Bellatori. The Tories didn’t put a cap on rents (which might be a good place to start), they put a cap on benefits and on housing benefit in particular. Landlords can get away with stupendously high rents because there is a chronic shortage of housing; a massive programme of house building would help rents to fall.

You own one property and say you need each month’s rent to pay your own. Fergus Wilson owns 1,000 properties and is worth about £240 million, so he doesn’t share your worry. If nobody paid him any rent for the next six months, it probably wouldn’t cramp his lifestyle. You’ve said you wouldn’t have a tenant who is receiving benefits, Wilson did accept them but he’s now changing the rules for existing tenants. He’s not even waiting to sort out those who keep their payments up to date – as I’m sure many would have done – from those who fall behind, he’s just evicting them all. What he’s doing should be illegal; tenants ought to have security of tenure if they pay their rent. So yes, I do pontificate and I do think Wilson’s behaviour is callous and immoral. A landlord may own a house, but to the tenant it’s a home.

Ivan wrote:Bellatori. The Tories didn’t put a cap on rents (which might be a good place to start), they put a cap on benefits and on housing benefit in particular.

Which if you read what I wrote is what I said. They limited what the DHSS could pay so landlords turned elsewhere.

Ivan wrote:Landlords can get away with stupendously high rents because there is a chronic shortage of housing; a massive programme of house building would help rents to fall.

Not really the point though. A big house building plan through the Labour decade would have been a good idea but it did not happen.

Ivan wrote:You own one property and say you need each month’s rent to pay your own.

I suppose I could say to the Landlord that I could not pay the rent this month - Hey you own a lot of properties so what the heck I won't pay for six months I'm sure you'll manage. Sound reasonable?   

Ivan wrote:Fergus Wilson owns 1,000 properties and is worth about £240 million, so he doesn’t share your worry. If nobody paid him any rent for the next six months, it probably wouldn’t cramp his lifestyle.

Wow... I think I won't pay my tax for six months. The government has masses coming in so it doesn't matter if I don't pay. Sound sensible?   

Ivan wrote:You’ve said you wouldn’t have a tenant who is receiving benefits, Wilson did accept them but he’s now changing the rules for existing tenants. He’s not even waiting to sort out those who keep their payments up to date – as I’m sure many would have done – from those who fall behind, he’s just evicting them all.

I don't disagree that that seems not very nice BUT who should he trust. He thought he could trust the DHSS but the Tories just pulled the rug from under him.

FW is NOT the problem. He is the result of the Tories trying to cut the welfare budget. As I said before, the system did work. Not always perfectly but it tottered along. Successive governments did not help by failing to implement an affordable housing policy and got the economy moving by investing in the housing infrastructure and building which would have ameliorated this problem and provided jobs and stimulus. Instead we get HS2 and an Olympic games (anyone remember that?).

So, after all that, (boatlady excepted) is there anybody who does not feel a little bit defiled by the way we are being forced to think about ourselves during this period of Tory self-concern?

Bellatori wrote:-
They put a cap on rents which did two things.

Ivan wrote:-
The Tories didn’t put a cap on rents (which might be a good place to start), they put a cap on benefits and on housing benefit in particular.

Bellatori wrote:-
Which if you read what I wrote is what I said.

     

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:-
They put a cap on rents which did two things.

Ivan wrote:-
The Tories didn’t put a cap on rents (which might be a good place to start), they put a cap on benefits and on housing benefit in particular.

Bellatori wrote:-
Which if you read what I wrote is what I said.

     

Bellatori wrote:The cap on rents the DHSS is allowed to pay

You will find this about two lines above your own post             

'ahem' DHSS stopped existing some time ago


Maybe, instread of all this head banging, we could agree that the private rental sector is signally failing to meet the needs of those who cannot afford to buy, while perhaps ideally suited to the needs of those who prefer not to buy ??


And maybe the answer to this proiblem would be to return to some more regulated system for providing for the housing needs of the majority of society - whether through provision of more and more varied forms of social housing or through application of strict rent controls and very strict controls and inspection to ensure private rentals are maintained to an adequate standard (rankly, I wouldn't house my dogs in some of the private rentals in my town)

Ivan wrote:

Bellatori wrote:-
They put a cap on rents which did two things.

Ivan wrote:-
The Tories didn’t put a cap on rents (which might be a good place to start), they put a cap on benefits and on housing benefit in particular.

Bellatori wrote:-
Which if you read what I wrote is what I said.

     

You're trying to make out Bella contradicted himself when in fact you made the mistake of taking one thing he said out of context. He then put you right and you're still doing it. I can only assume you're doing it on purpose but I can't see how you think you're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Bella's points were pretty clear and straightforward.

oftenwrong wrote:So, after all that, (boatlady excepted) is there anybody who does not feel a little bit defiled by the way we are being forced to think about ourselves during this period of Tory self-concern?

I sympathise with the tenants but it's fairly easy to empathise with the landlords over this too. I'm neither, as it happens, so self-concern doesn't come into it as far as I'm concerned.

boatlady wrote:'ahem' DHSS stopped existing some time ago

      Mea Culpa, bit of a time warp there   

boatlady wrote:Maybe, ..., we could agree that the private rental sector is signally failing to meet the needs of those who cannot afford to buy, while perhaps ideally suited to the needs of those who prefer not to buy ??

You are probably right but the recent changes have, IMO, caused a shift that is very damaging. We do seem to have an obsession with own you own home that seems less prevalent in continental Europe which exacerbates things.

boatlady wrote:And maybe the answer to this problem would be to return to some more regulated system for providing for the housing needs of the majority of society - whether through provision of more and more varied forms of social housing or through application of strict rent controls and very strict controls and inspection to ensure private rentals are maintained to an adequate standard (rankly, I wouldn't house my dogs in some of the private rentals in my town)

Margaret Thatcher and the 'Right to Buy' pandered to the point I made above and was, again IMO, a very damaging policy. When Labour got in there should have been a drive for social housing and reforms of the housing market. After Rackman, no one really wanted to rent. The scandal was horrifying. It fed the aspiration to own your own home. Problem is that is an unrealistic ambition for much of the population BUT proper living accommodation is a human right. We have failed to meet this requirement whether through Thatcher selling off the housing stock or subsequent governments not supplying sufficient incentives to get building houses stimulated. This final act of not paying landlords directly is the last nail in the coffin. It is painted as choice and responsibility but the reality is that it is a disguised cut in benefits. The irony is that if the money were paid directly to landlords still BUT they stated that all DSS rents paid would be fixed for 3 (say) years or even a 5% cut most landlords would sulk and grizzle and take the hit. Loss of rent for a month is much greater than 5% and a lot of landlords have buy to let mortgages.

QUOTE: "....a lot of landlords have buy to let mortgages." Bellatori

Indeed they do, and the practise of borrowing money to make money is a cornerstone of Capitalism.

But it's not the function of the Taxpayer to bail out the risk-takers when they come unstuck - well it wasn't before 2008, anyway.

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: "....a lot of landlords have buy to let mortgages." Bellatori

Indeed they do, and the practise of borrowing money to make money is a cornerstone of Capitalism.

But it's not the function of the Taxpayer to bail out the risk-takers when they come unstuck - well it wasn't before 2008, anyway.

What's your point in relation to the topic at hand, OW? I might be missing something but it's not immediately obvious to me what the government changes to the policy of payment of rent directly to landlords for those on benefit has to do with the banking bailout.

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: "....a lot of landlords have buy to let mortgages." Bellatori

Indeed they do, and the practise of borrowing money to make money is a cornerstone of Capitalism....

It is always important to remember that in any agreement there are two parties. The trick is to try and keep the playing field level. In this case the parties are rentor and rentee. There is no obligation on the rentor to rent to a rentee and pissing them off is not going to endear them to the prospect. What the Tories have done is a game changer. The 'buy to let' rentors have been encouraged by easy lending for the last twenty years. If they go bankrupt the house passes to another rentor who got it on the cheap. This does not advantage the rentee one bit. Different landlord same rent agreement.

The issue as I have tried to explain is the change in payment system. The landlords no longer have a guarantee of getting the money from the DSS so now they are looking for safer rental prospects. If I had a buy to let mortgage I am going to be desperately anxious to ensure my cash flow. Up goes the sign 'NO DSS'.

The tax-payer is not taking a risk because the owner of the property simply shifts if the current owner defaults. The point is 'Why do we expect the rentor to take a risk?" Obligations run both ways and this government is defaulting on its side of the agreement.

With right to buy as with many other policies brought in by the right over the last 30 years, every time a Labour spokesman fails to put the alternatives to neo-liberal policies, it becomes harder for any future Labour government to push through those alternatives, even assuming it wanted to. Labour's credibility is undermined. Essentially, courage is needed. Margaret Thatcher had that courage of her (wrong-headed? evil?) convictions: she was prepared to risk losing in order to impose change. The priority of Labour ever since seems to have been short-term, to win next time at any cost, to dismiss conviction as self-defeating. And so Labour is not trusted, either to be competent, because they commit themselves to policies they themselves do not believe in, or to deliver. Labour has already committed itself to more or less follow current Tory economic policies, because its spokespeople are either unwilling to, or incapable of, standing up and putting a convincing argument. The fact that Cameron and Osborne can stand up and push the vicious message they are now rather successfully pushing is to a great extent down to this fundamental failure on the part of Labour.

Bellatori said: "In this time of constraint who willingly throws money away particularly if, like me, you only have a pension?"

Perhaps you may like to explain this.


BELLATORI an IT & Digital service company

providing support for home and business since 1996

HOME SUPPORT
BUSINESS SUPPORT
CONTACT US.

Dan Fante wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: "....a lot of landlords have buy to let mortgages." Bellatori

Indeed they do, and the practise of borrowing money to make money is a cornerstone of Capitalism.

But it's not the function of the Taxpayer to bail out the risk-takers when they come unstuck - well it wasn't before 2008, anyway.

What's your point in relation to the topic at hand, OW? I might be missing something but it's not immediately obvious to me what the government changes to the policy of payment of rent directly to landlords for those on benefit has to do with the banking bailout.

Oh, how carefully words must be chosen if everybody is to be content. In a topic concerning Scroungers, specifically in the area of rented accommodation, the word can be said to apply IMHO equally to both parties - landlord and tenant. The latter is publicly reviled for paying the rent from Welfare Benefits, but a dual moral standard operates for the landlord who is also using other people's money in order to be able to afford the purchase of the property.

Incidentally mortage interest rates are at a historical all-time low. By government decree via the B of E. That is to say, the same government which has been making such a fuss about welfare claims.

Again, I don't see your point. How else is the payment of rent for people on benefits to be paid if not from the public purse? Yes, it's paid to private landlords in the cases we're talking about but I don't see how that's a bailout of people who have taken a financial risk which has failed (which is what a bailout is this context). No doubt you'll again accuse me of pedantry but I suspect that's a diversionary tactic when your ethereal points (if you can call them points) don't hold up to scrutiny. Perhaps you should stick to the tangential one-liners.

Dan Fante wrote: I don't see your point. How else is the payment of rent for people on benefits to be paid if not from the public purse? Yes, it's paid to private landlords in the cases we're talking about but I don't see how that's a bailout of people who have taken a financial risk which has failed (which is what a bailout is this context).

I do see his point. A landlord in this situation is using public money via the benefit system to pay for his/her retirement/holidays/second home. Your use of the word "risk" is perhaps out of place: the risk is in fact nearly all the tenant's. This is just the way things are, of course, as a result of our not building enough low-rent (council) homes. Governments have chosen instead to subsidise landlords. Now an ill-thought-out reform of the benefits system is bringing that policy crashing down too.
Bellatori did also say that the government had capped rents. This is untrue: benefits have been capped, thus putting rents out of reach for many tenants. Landlords can still charge whatever the market will stand.

Bellatori made clear what he meant by the cap though (and was still ignored). And paying Landlords doesn't equate to bailing them out. No one is suggesting that Landlords renting to those on benefit are not the beneficiaries of public money on the other hand. But, if a Landlord couldn't pay their mortgage because they couldn't get the rent off a tenant (to keep it relevant to what we're discussing) then answer this: would they face losing their property or would the taxpayer bail them out? It's the former so the notion of a bailout is a complete red herring.

"Perhaps you should stick to the tangential one-liners."

Ooohh, bitchy! I may have got through finally.

The conspiracy theory applies, Dan. The self-appointed ruling classes have stacked the deck in their favour ever since 1066.
In the present Century we have seen the Banks rescued from their own folly, while at the same time any individual who falls on similar hard times is told that a National Insurance scheme which they may have paid into since 1948 can no longer cope with THEIR demands.

The thrifty who accumulated Savings, found after 2008 that the Bank of England had rendered them almost worthless, by a reduction of Bank Rate to an historical low (where it remains). The classic double whammy by which a Tory administration has encouraged private landlords through making mortgages cheap whilst at the same time, by the same measure, made it more difficult for others to pay their rent from depleted savings.

bobby wrote:Bellatori said: "In this time of constraint who willingly throws money away particularly if, like me, you only have a pension?"

Perhaps you may like to explain this.


BELLATORI an IT & Digital service company

providing support for home and business since 1996

HOME SUPPORT
BUSINESS SUPPORT
CONTACT US.

Well now Bobby, what is there to explain? It is a website. Where do you think the money for my pension came from? The web site has generated no work for nearly two years. It is really a memorial rather than anything else.

I have a feeling that your motives for such a question are probably less than commendable and certainly not on topic. Hmmm   

David Richardson wrote:...
I do see his point. A landlord in this situation is using public money via the benefit system to pay for his/her retirement/holidays/second home. ...

The landlord is not using public money. The tenant is using public money to pay the rent. My daughter pays rent,; I pay rent but neither of us is dipping into the public purse to do so. You are mis-stating the situation to make an invalid point.

A few things to pick up on from your last post there, Oftenwrong:

The interest rate was extremely low before 2008 too. Savings weren't rendered worthless by a change in 2008. What it meant was that savings weren't earning you much money. This was the case under Labour too. If you wanted to make money with your savings there were riskier but more lucrative alternatives to leaving them in the bank, such as shares or property. What happened in 2008 didn't alter this.
Also, the buy to let mortgages grew hugely (and were much easier to obtain) under the previous administration prior to 2008. I'm sure you remember 100% mortgages and people being able to obtain mortgages that were upto 10x what they earned in a year. All on Brown and Blair's watch (who, incidentally did absolutely nothing to solve the social housing problem we are now faced with).
Also, these thrifty savers who pay rent on their accommodating from their savings? That's not a particularly large demographic, is it? Firstly, if you need savings to pay your rent then how do you go about saving the money in the first place? Secondly, the financial prudent types you allude to largely crossover with those who own their own homes / have a mortgage. In any case they don't correspond to those relying on benefits to pay their rent, do they?

Wow!  Some people actually believe that guff about, "We're all in this together."

Incidentally, mortgage rates were around 5.75% in 2008, before bank rate became one-half of one percent.

oftenwrong wrote:Wow!  Some people actually believe that guff about, "We're all in this together."

Almost certainly the same people who believe the same guff about the idyll that was Brown and Blair I would guess.   

OW has taken my advice I see

How could one refuse?

oftenwrong wrote:Wow!  Some people actually believe that guff about, "We're all in this together."

Incidentally, mortgage rates were around 5.75% in 2008, before bank rate became one-half of one percent.

It was still historically very low in the years prior to the banking crash in 2008 and it was much easier to obtain a mortgage before then than it is now.

Bellatori wrote:The landlord is not using public money. The tenant is using public money to pay the rent. My daughter pays rent,; I pay rent but neither of us is dipping into the public purse to do so. You are mis-stating the situation to make an invalid point.

The landlord's rent is coming from the public purse. The tenant has no choice in the matter if he wants a roof over his head: and he doesn't see any of the money. Governments have chosen to subsidise rents rather than build houses. The landlord might very well be one of those people who have lost out on final-salary pensions, or pensions of any kind, owing to the casualization of labour over the last few decades. He has to provide for his future, so he is not necessarily to blame either - but he is doing so with public money.

But then, all money is public, isn't it? It consists of tokens that have value only if they circulate within a community that expresses a belief in their validity through the authority of state institutions. Making the possession of money contingent upon work has always been a dubious principle, never held to by the ruling elite in respect of itself, and surely outdated in an economy that is manifestly incapable of providing 40 hours work per week to all those deemed to need it. We all live on benefits, of one kind or another.