April: when everything changes

[DanaC]

This is it then. The 'bedroom tax' the benefits cap, the changes to council tax, changes to the NHS etc etc.

The biggest change to the welfare system in generations. The biggest change to the NHS since its founding. Many physicians see the changes to commissioning and governance as the deathknell of the NHS as we know it.

April 1: Bedroom tax introduced; Thousands lose access to legal aid; Council tax benefit passes into local control; NHS commissioning changes for ever, Regulation of financial industry changes

April 6: 50p tax rate scrapped for high earners

April 8: Disability living allowance scrapped (replaced by much narrower 'personal independence payment'); Benefit uprating begins (capping raises at 1% for 3 years, regardless of inflation)

April 15: Welfare benefit cap (absolute limit on the total package of benefits or tax credits regardless of family size or circumstance)

April 28: Universal credit introduced (serious concerns over whether this system will be ready and implementable)



From the Guardian:

Bedroom tax introduced

The aim is to tackle overcrowding and encourage a more efficient use of social housing. Working age housing benefit and unemployment claimants deemed to have one spare bedroom in social housing will lose 14% of their housing benefit and those with two or more spare bedrooms will lose 25%. An estimated 1m households with extra bedrooms are paid housing benefit. Critics say it is an inefficient policy as in the north of England, families with a spare rooms outnumber overcrowded families by three to one, so thousands will be hit with the tax when there is no local need for them to move. Two-thirds of the people hit by the bedroom tax are disabled.

Savings: £465m a year. As many as 660,000 people in social housing will lose an average of £728 a year.

Thousands lose access to legal aid

Branded by Labour a "day of shame" for the legal aid system, the cutoff to claim legal aid will be a household income of £32,000, and those earning between £14,000 and £32,000 will have to take a means test. Family law cases including divorce, child custody, immigration and employment cases will be badly affected.

Savings: a minimum £350m from £2.2bn legal aid bill.

NHS commissioning changes for ever

An NHS commissioning board and a total of 240 local commissioning groups made up of doctors, nurses and other professionals will take control of budgets to buy services for patients. They will buy from any service providers, including private ones so long as they meet NHS standards and costs. Strategic health authorities and primary care trusts disappear.


Costs: £1.4bn, mainly in redundancies, followed by savings as high as £5bn in 2015 owing to fall in staff numbers.

Council tax benefit passes into local control

Council tax benefit, currently a single system administered by the Department for Work and Pensions, is being transferred to local councils with a reduction in funding of 10%. Council tax benefit is claimed by 5.9 million low-income families in the UK. The new onus on councils has come at a time when local government funding, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has fallen by 26.8% in two years in real terms. A Guardian survey of 81 councils last week found many claiming they face difficult cuts, with almost half saying they were reducing spending on care services for adults. This also comes at a time when 2.4m households will see a council tax rise.


Savings: up to £480m a year, but depends on decisions of local councils.

I think about this stuff and I feel physically sick. The wilful and deliberate breaking up of the things that make us strong, justified by lies about what makes us weak.

Angry? Me? Too fucking right I am angry.

50p tax rate scrapped for high earners

Announced in the 2012 budget. George Osborne said the 50p rate, introduced in April 2010, caused massive distortions in 2010-11 and raised only £1bn, rather than the £2.5bn forecast by Labour back in 2009. HMRC found £16bn was deliberately shifted into the previous tax year, largely by owner/directors of companies taking dividends in the previous year when the highest rate was still 40p. Labour claims 13,000 millionaires will get a £100,000 tax cut.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-conservatives

[footfootfoot]

The Waste Land
T.S. Eliot

I. THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD

APRIL is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.
Winter kept us warm, covering
Earth in forgetful snow, feeding
A little life with dried tubers.
Summer surprised us, coming over the Starnbergersee
With a shower of rain; we stopped in the colonnade,
And went on in sunlight, into the Hofgarten,
And drank coffee, and talked for an hour.
Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen, echt deutsch.
And when we were children, staying at the archduke’s,
My cousin’s, he took me out on a sled,
And I was frightened. He said, Marie,
Marie, hold on tight. And down we went.
In the mountains, there you feel free.
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.

Continued

[orthodoc]

I don't know what things cost in Britain, so have no way to understand how some of these cuts will affect people on various incomes. All I know is my family's experience.

My grandfather built a tiny house in Sudbury, Ontario in the mid-20th century with two tiny bedrooms on the main floor and an upstairs 'apartment' with tiny kitchen and two bedrooms. His family of five children (2 boys, 3 girls) lived there and took in two boarders to make ends meet; they also supported his parents, my grandmother's parents, and my great-aunt who had no income. My grandfather was a welder. My grandmother fed 14 people at every meal. My father and his siblings worked as soon as they were able, along with going to school.

I don't understand why people who are relying on taxpayer support should have one or two spare bedrooms. If my grandparents hadn't taken in boarders, they would have had to move. They took in boarders to make ends meet, and they never ever applied for government support.

An income of $64,000, more or less, disqualifies people for legal aid? I don't understand why they would qualify for legal aid at that income level.

I understand being angry that cuts are being given to high earners, but that doesn't help me understand why others shouldn't do everything possible to make their own situation work. I come from a poor Scottish immigrant family and I know what it's like to survive on far less than poverty level income. I don't understand all of your anger, Dana, but I respect your thoughts - help me understand.

[glatt]

$64k doesn't go as far in England as it does here. And by "here," I mean Arlington VA, where $64k doesn't go as far as it would in, say, Peoria.

You have really good points, but I think it's a mistake to focus on the dollar amounts.

[orthodoc]

Fair enough - as I said, I don't know how far a certain income goes in the UK. But I know plenty of working families who can't afford legal representation, which was my reference point in asking about the $64K income.

It's an ongoing frustration in Ontario that people on benefits have far more than many working families. In PA, low income people on Medicaid have coverage for unlimited office appointments, procedures, and ER visits, whereas people paying for private insurance have strictly limited access to such visits and major out of pocket expenses, while a substantial portion of their income goes to pay for the unlimited visits of those on lower incomes.

I don't begrudge anyone the means to live with dignity. I also think that people should do everything within their power to support themselves, and if it means living in an area with lower costs (like Peoria), so be it. An issue came up awhile back over benefits for those in Ontario who wanted to live in Toronto (provincial capital; very expensive place to live). Some felt that people on benefits should be given whatever monies it took to live in Toronto; others felt that recipients should live where their benefits allowed them to make ends meet. Many, many working people couldn't (and still can't) afford to live in Toronto. I understand the argument that people should live where they can manage their budgets. The same could apply to arguments about London or DC.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The annual median wage fell in 2010 for the second year in a row to $26,364

I'm sure these people would love $64,000.

[DanaC]

People in social housing are not allowed to rent out there spare rooms. I'm sure many tenants would love to do just that.

And there is a massive shortage of one and two bedroom homes. I'm not entirely sure where the government thinks these people can move.

Most of the people affected by this are on a bare minimum already. Arbitrarily deciding that someone who has lived in their home for 20 years or more should suddenly have to pay a premium for an extra bedroom is unfair.

As to whether whole areas become inaccessible for people on low incomes: that is socially dangerous imo. It is not good for a society to have whole cities devoted to a single class of inhabitants whilst the people who service that class live in an entirely different region.

[DanaC]

Worth remembering as well, that this isn't a single change in their income. They're being hit by a raft of cuts and rises. Cuts to income, benefits and access to services, rising taxes and rents. All in one fell swoop.

The ones who will suffer most are those currently with disabilities or caring responsibilities. Because their carer benefits are also being cut.

In London, I can see an argument for the low occupancy measures. Don't agree, but can see the argument. But in the North, this does not make sense at all.

We are willfully creating a homelessness problem. Rough sleeping is already up by about 20% before this latest measure.

The politicians say: well, people will just have to work an extra few hours. Except most people these days don't have access to overtime or extra hours. Certainly, most of the people affected by this will not be in those kinds of jobs.

At the same time, they're cutting the levels of help for families where only one person works, or where work is only parttime (fuck you single parents!).

The unseen cost is staggering. What does it cost society when children are wrenched from schools in which they are settled, moved halfway across the country, or living in hostels because they've been evicted? How are schools in low rent areas going to cope with the massive hike in numbers?

How many divorced parents are no longer going to be able to split the care of their children between them because the room at Dad's house is considered 'spare' despite the fact a child lives there every other week?

If it saved money I would have more sympathy with this scheme. But all the recent reports and studies seem to show that the governments estimates of saving are fantasy and this will end up costing the country millions.

We, the tax payer, are going to pay through the nose in order to make these people suffer.

[Clodfobble]

It makes no sense to me to count housing benefits by number of rooms anyway. Housing vouchers here are flat dollar figures, and it's up to the tenant to figure out how much house they can afford and in what neighborhood.

Still, I can't get over how often you and Sundae refer to housing benefits and estates. It just seems so much rarer here overall. But maybe I get a false impression simply because it's a hot topic... roughly what percentage of the UK population would you say is on some level of government housing?

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It makes no sense to me to count housing benefits by number of rooms anyway. Housing vouchers here are flat dollar figures, and it's up to the tenant to figure out how much house they can afford and in what neighborhood.

Still, I can't get over how often you and Sundae refer to housing benefits and estates. It just seems so much rarer here overall. But maybe I get a false impression simply because it's a hot topic... roughly what percentage of the UK population would you say is on some level of government housing?

I think the Housing Authorities in the US go by Federal mandate. At any rate, in Colorado the local Housing Authority sets what's called a "fair" market value on the amount you are allowed to rent an apartment for.

What a joke! In Cortez, the HA sets the highest rent a single person can pay at $500.00/month. This sum must cover utilities, as well. If I am very frugal and never set the thermostat over 55 - 60 degrees in the winter, I can slither by paying $70.00/month for gas and electric. This leaves me with $430.00 to find a rental with. The only places around here that rent for that little are trailers in parks with meth labs.

I lucked out on my current apartment because when I moved in 3 years ago, the fair market was $530.00/month. It's gone down now thanks to the fact that there is a 1000% unemployment here and no one can afford to pay for ANYTHING. They're letting me stay here for the time being, anyhow.

Also, a single person cannot rent an apartment or house with more than one bedroom. In fact, I am not even allowed to share housing expenses with anyone who is not a family member. Thus, a person with a rental voucher can't double up with someone else to help save on expenses. What a stupid rule!

What's even worse is what the fair market is 50 miles away in La Plata County in Durango where a person might have a chance of finding employment. If you're really lucky, you might find a one bedroom in Durango for $1,000/month. The Housing Authority claims that a single person can rent for $750.00/month - including utilities - in La Plata County. Ha, Ha, Ha! Yeah, a storage shed for that amount, maybe - but not a place where you're not even allowed to have a roommate to split the rent with. Another stupid rule because if the Housing Authority would just up the fair market by even $200, people from poverty stricken Montezuma and Dolores Counties could move to Durango where the jobs are.

All I need to tear my housing voucher in half is an additional $500 - $600/month - a sum that I could make even part time at minimum wage. But I can't do that in Cortez and I can't afford the move to a new town, so I am almost like a prisoner to the local housing authority.

If I had 64K/year, I'd feel like I'd died and gone to heaven. As it is, my income places me at 130% BELOW the poverty level and legal aid does not exist in Montezuma County. If I need legal advise, I'd have to go shoplift something and make sure I got caught because then I would at least be given a public defender.

As much as some people would like to believe otherwise, folks do not just go live on a low income and wallow around all day on their extravagent gov't benefits because it's such a wonderful way of life. I would love to be able to have a job again that just paid a living wage. I'd go and throw those stupid benefits in the social worker's face and dance a little jig on my way out of the building.

My own grandparents were born into poverty in the Kentucky Mountains. You either went to work in the coal mines and died an early death or you starved. Anyone who could manage to get out did. My Grandmother was lucky in that her parents had a bit more money than most of the folks in Harlan County. My great grandparents loaned my grandparents just enough money to buy a farm down in the bluegrass country near Lexington. Despite the fact that the great depression was going on, my grandparents not only managed to repay the loan, they also set aside the money to put everyone of their 6 children through the University of Kentucky.

My grandmother and grandfather who had never even graduated from high school had an eldest son with a PhD in chemistry, the second oldest (my Dad) went to medical school, the youngest brother got a doctrate and became head of the Department of Education at the University of Boston. The oldest girl got her RN and the two younger girls became teachers.

All of my family worked from sun up to sun down, making every single acre productive on that farm they owned. They had pigs and chickens, as well as milk cows. My Grandmother had a butter and egg route that she ran every week for her regular customers in the nearest town. All their vegetables and produce they grew and canned themselves. Tobacco was their cash crop, and if you've never spent a hot Kentucky day stripping tobacco leaves, you don't know what hard work is.

It pisses me off no end when people tell their family stories in order to prove how THEY know how to work and THEY know how to get by on one slice of bread a day and THEY just sucked it up and NEVER complained because THEY were all just the fucking salt of the earth.

And if someone else needs some help for whatever reason, then they are merely worthless scum who should get their Medicaid taken away and go off and die quietly somewhere and leave the superior members of our society alone.

Now if you all will excuse me, I need to go forge some paperwork for my appointment to become a welfare queen tomorrow. Plus, I need to practice my fake limp, so I can get all that oxycontan for free from my quack doctor who I also see for free.

Or I could just get so angry and so discouraged and so just sick and tired of my pathetic existance that I'll go throw myself off a cliff into the fucking Colorado River. It beats having to camp next to it come winter when the fair market value for my rental goes down to $1.50/month.

And I'm ever so sorry that my family was so clueless that they became tobacco farmers instead of immigrating to Canada. I'm sure my cousins will be delighted to hear what no accounts we Kentuckians are.

[orthodoc]

@Dana - Thank you for explaining further. As always, you shed light on the subtleties of the situation.

Not being allowed to rent out a spare room, and yet facing a tax (or eviction) for having a spare room, makes no sense. Especially where a child is sharing time between two households. That is frankly insane, and I agree with you on that. In PA, people on disability are permitted to share housing. Marriage is a disadvantage because the non-disabled spouse is expected to support the disabled spouse, and benefits are cut. But sharing of housing is virtually required unless there's significant SSDI (disability benefits related to years of previous work). If someone becomes (or has always been) disabled at a young age, without much work experience, SSI benefits are utterly inadequate to manage independently.

From what you've said, I take it that the government is trying to evict those with spare rooms and move overcrowded families into those houses? Is there any attempt to move the smaller families into the previously overcrowded housing? (I know this only addresses the issue of homelessness and not the issues of uprooting longtime, possibly disabled tenants, or having children change schools, etc. - all of which are important issues.)

I do understand your point regarding entire areas becoming inaccessible to people with lower incomes. I'm not advocating that extreme; my concern has been the difficulty faced by long-term lower-income residents of a city like Toronto who find themselves increasingly unable to meet the property and school tax burden (if owners) or rent increases. These families are forced to move to smaller cities or towns. It creates resentment and, I think can fairly be said, an injustice, that, after losing their homes of 30+ years, they are required to support others who are new to the city in living where they had their lives, their neighborhoods, their memories.

I know change is inevitable. It's also painful to those who don't have a choice, and in this I completely sympathize, no matter who it is.

I also appreciate your comment that many cuts and changes are coming to bear all at once. That makes for a very different picture. I hate, especially, to think that benefits for caregivers are being cut. That has to be the most short-sighted, inhumane policy possible.

[orthodoc]

@IamSam - you're clearly offended that I said my grandparents 'never, ever applied for government support'. Well, they didn't. Fact. What I didn't say was that anyone who needs help is 'worthless scum who should get their Medicaid taken away and go off and die quietly somewhere and leave the superior members of our society alone'. Really. Really?

I didn't mention my grandparents in order to start a pissing contest over whose grandparents worked harder. (We both had hard-working grandparents: hooray!) I've mentioned my background a couple of times on the board because I'm a doctor, and there's a general hostility to higher incomes here, and it's easy to look at me and assume I know nothing at all about living on a low income.

Your father was a doctor at a time when physician incomes were off the charts relative to average incomes. Does that make your comments invalid? Obviously not. But I find that I can't assume that for myself.

In my response to Dana I tried to put my comments in context, i.e. that I don't come from a wealthy or well-off family, that I do understand first-hand what it is to live without enough income to make ends meet. That's all it was about.

Your unpleasantness isn't necessary. If you really plan to throw yourself into the Colorado River, please go to your nearest ER and access Crisis Services. Please. If not, just stop the bullshit and the stupid unsubstantiated comments about Canadians and Kentuckians.

[footfootfoot]

I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...I must not stir shit...

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

@Dana - Thank you for explaining further. As always, you shed light on the subtleties of the situation.

Not being allowed to rent out a spare room, and yet facing a tax (or eviction) for having a spare room, makes no sense. Especially where a child is sharing time between two households. That is frankly insane, and I agree with you on that. In PA, people on disability are permitted to share housing. Marriage is a disadvantage because the non-disabled spouse is expected to support the disabled spouse, and benefits are cut. But sharing of housing is virtually required unless there's significant SSDI (disability benefits related to years of previous work). If someone becomes (or has always been) disabled at a young age, without much work experience, SSI benefits are utterly inadequate to manage independently.

From what you've said, I take it that the government is trying to evict those with spare rooms and move overcrowded families into those houses? Is there any attempt to move the smaller families into the previously overcrowded housing? (I know this only addresses the issue of homelessness and not the issues of uprooting longtime, possibly disabled tenants, or having children change schools, etc. - all of which are important issues.)

I do understand your point regarding entire areas becoming inaccessible to people with lower incomes. I'm not advocating that extreme; my concern has been the difficulty faced by long-term lower-income residents of a city like Toronto who find themselves increasingly unable to meet the property and school tax burden (if owners) or rent increases. These families are forced to move to smaller cities or towns. It creates resentment and, I think can fairly be said, an injustice, that, after losing their homes of 30+ years, they are required to support others who are new to the city in living where they had their lives, their neighborhoods, their memories.

I know change is inevitable. It's also painful to those who don't have a choice, and in this I completely sympathize, no matter who it is.

I also appreciate your comment that many cuts and changes are coming to bear all at once. That makes for a very different picture. I hate, especially, to think that benefits for caregivers are being cut. That has to be the most short-sighted, inhumane policy possible.

The having to move out because of unaffordability is a problem. One of the really unfair things about this is it also affects working people. The vast majority of people claiming housing benefit are actually the working poor, not the unemployed. And 70% of households affected by the bedroom tax are households with disabled members - for example: in cases where a husband and wife live together and one of them has severe disabilities, or dementia and the unaffacted partner needs to sometimes sleep in the spare room in order to get some sleep.


The hope, according to the government, is that those in under occupied homes will move to somewhere smaller, freeing up the larger homes for those currently in overcrowded homes. The problem is that the number of smaller homes available in the social sector (council houses, association houses, assisted housing) is wholly inadequate, meaning they will have to go into the private sector: where the rents are higher, but where a higher percentage of their rent will be covered because they won't come under the extra bedroom rule.

In theory, they'll move into the private sector, and those currently underhouses in the private sector will move into their house.

In reality, the private sector is becoming less and less accessible to social renters. Most of the houses that go up for rent now say: No Dogs, No DSS, meaning they won't take on social tenants.

Very few of the smalltime landlords will take on benefits claimants. That leaves the big players. The slum landlords.

What has exacerbated this whole thing are a number of other changes. Starting with the wholescale sell-off of housing stock during the 80s and 90s. Tenants were given the right to buy at a reduced rate. The councils who previously owned those houses were not allowed to use those funds to build new houses. They were then pressured to handover their remaining stock to arms length associations. In theory this is just as much of a safety net as the previous system. They're not for profit after all. But they need to make enough to pay their chief exec half a million or more per year, and give silver hellos and golden handshakes to senior staff. And they can't be voted out if they fuck it up. They don't just build social housing now, they also build for sale.

So: in a country that already had a housing shortage, though a small one, with people waiting up to four or five years for council houses, they sold off the stock. Now the average waiting time runs into decades unless you meet the criteria for extreme vulnerability. People 'bid' for houses as they become available. But those with specific housing needs that grant them silver or gold status will always get them. The poor bastards with the 'bronze' status can bid fify times a week and they'll never get it.

The housing boom built lots of houses that nobody can afford. In my borough there are about 6000 people waiting for housing. There are also several thousand empty properties. Most of them are one and two bedroom apartments. But they're standing empty.

Another, more recent change which has exacerbated the situation is the ending of direct payments for housing benefits. Used to be, you could choose to have the rent paid directly to the landlord. That provided smaller landlords (people who've bought one or two houses to let alongside their dayjob) with the reassurance they needed to take on a social tenant.

Now, you are only given that facility if you've gone several months in arrears and are at risk of eviction.

No Dogs, No DSS.

So, if the private landlords won't take them. And their tenancy agreements won't let them take on a boarder to fill their spare room. Where the fuck are they supposed to go?

They're not being evicted by the government. They're having their benefit reduced by £14 per week for that extra room. That is one fuck of a big chunk to take off someone whose income after rent is around £60 per week (for someone unemployed or on disability)

Most of those tenants already pay a small contribution to their rent out of their other benefits. Now they're going to have to pay an extra £14. Those same people are about to be hit with council tax for the first time. Instead of being wholly exempt, they will now have to pay a small contribution (probably about £10 per week.

£24 per week out of their £60 a week.


Later this year, the next blow: the universal credit. Instead of a raft of different benefits, one single benefit covering it all. With an absoluter limit of £500 per week per household, regardless of family size or location: hell of a difference between trying to live for £500 a week in the north, and in the south. hell of a difference between £500 per week for a couple with one child, and a couple with three children.

Then, as a final kick in the guts: benefits are to be capped at 1% for the next three years. meaning a real terms cut of several percent over that period.

And iof you're in work? Well, the working tax credits are included in that. If two parents work, they will be rewarded with some tax benefits. But only if they work full time. Tax credits for those working part time, or where one parents isn't working, are reducing and some ending.

Travel allowances for disabled people in residential care has been scrapped. Along with a raft of other smaller benefits.

Theytell us that it will be picked up by the raise in income tax barrier. So a larger proportion of low wages will be kept and not swallowed up by taxes. But it is more than offset by the loss of working tax credits. At the same time, the top rate of income tax has been cut.

The cost of the country's recovery is being borne by the poorest and least able to cope. Anbd it isn't even going to save us money. It's going to cost heavily.

[footfootfoot]

Whatever happens it will not affect the wealthy. Nuclear war, plague, pestilence, famine, they'll still be farting through silk and eating the poor.

The problem with your outrage is that your metrics for decency are irrelevant to the people in power.

Consider war. The British came to defeat the uprising in the American colonies and marched in their bright red outfits, in formation expecting a certain type of confrontation that was not forthcoming, the colonists were playing by different rules, Same thing in Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.

It is fundamentally important to be able to think like your opponent. If you assume that your opponent thinks like you, you're in for a rude surprise.