text:
Start new thread in this topic | Flip this thread | Refresh the display |
This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has 140 messages.)
Universal Credit. 20-30% don't pay the rent.
(140 Posts)Article
Anyone pick up on this story? As part of the move to Universal Credit where claimants are given a sum of money each month and expected to manage it, a pilot study showed that about 20 - 30% of recipients failed to pay the rent on time. Given cash rather than the money going directly to the landlord, a surprising number defaulted on the rent. Extrapolated up a 20 -30% failure rate would be disastrous and plans are having to be drawn on how to support people in running household budgets and setting priorities.
I'm largely a supporter of UC as I think the current system is over-complex. I also realise that money-management doesn't come naturally to many. But if such a large percentage of people would struggle to manage a monthly benefit income this way, how would they make the transition to paid employment?
I dont understand this tbh.
It has been a long time since housing benefit was paid directly to the landlord.
It will be very difficult if you claim uc to get a ll with those stats.
I think thats the point to be honest. People are afraid to get jobs because they get paid monthly. If benefits also get paid monthly then it is supposed to be less stressful a transition. I am not shocked by those figures though. Its going to take some people a long time to get the hang of it.
agree with foosa. It's only paid directly now if you request it espeically or the council decides to because of prior history of not paying on time.
It's already difficult to rent privately when claiming HB because of the associated higher risks of non payment. Frustrating for tenants like me, who depend on HB to help with rent.
What percentage of housing benefit claimants now don't pay rent? I don't really see the difference.
Have I read the article right, that they've only tested it on social housing tenants? Because if so I think that will skew the figures. People in social housing don't have to renew their leases every year so are at much less risk of getting chucked out if they don't keep up with the rent, so I think it's easier for some of them to ignore. Not so much that they can't budget but it's a different priority. We rent privately and although we need a top up from HB to be able to afford it we know that the rent has to be paid first and then worry about the other bills after that, otherwise we will soon be out on the street.
I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush before anyone gets upset btw, just I think that for some the mindset is that they believe they will always be rehoused.
Pixel: You are speaking in general, some in fact most social landlords are very proactive about housing arrears. Some city councils are the ones that start proceedings well ahead of any private landlords.
Whilst it might be useful to imagine that it will only be those that have the most chaotic of lifestyles that are likely to use the rent money for other things, I would suggest very many HB claimants will be low waged and will be the ones who will be most likely to use the rent money to cover emergencies or unexpected large expenses like car breakdown, or large fuel bills.
There's no easy answer on this one. If you pay the LL's directly then it's taking responsibility away from the individual and assuming there's nothing mentally wrong with them then that can never be a good thing. People should be left to make their own decisions as much as possible wherever possible. It's a fundamental freedom in our society.
But if you pay them directly and they piss it up the wall or use it for something else then that creates a costly mess for someone else to clear up.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
I see the author of the article has since been advised to revise the default rate to 'the teens' rather than the higher figure. So that's something. But regarding the 'costly mess for someone else to clear up'... perhaps it's the assumption that someone else will clear up the mess that makes defaulting more rather than less likely?
For once I agree with Niceguy
I am wondering if UC will take away some of the stigma of HB so more people could rent privately? or whether the reverse will happen where LL will be less keen on taking on tenants with UC.
Not everyone on UC will be in receipt of money to cover housing, just as some people now receive TC but no HB. How will LL be able to distinguish between these cases, will it mean that everyone on UC will be tarred with the same brush? as feckless innumerates unable to budget.
I thought one of the reasons for paying LL directly was to encourage LL to take on tenants on low incomes because the rent was guaranteed.
Interesting but I do wonder how much this differs from present reality. Unfortunately the larger mess is the impact on other benefit recipients, who will not be accepted by many landlords, though that's already the case.
Good point, how will landlords know. At the moment they know because HB is paid in arrears and many recipients can't pay a deposit. They are always up-front about it IME.
Yes Cogito, there is an expectation in some circles that the council will always for whatever reason sort their mess out. Even if the council won't/can't, it will still suck some resources as these people who have spent their money on something else will be complaining.
But my OH was telling me about a client of theirs (she works in the care industry) who has some mild learning disability. He was moving into his own place and received housing benefit. He instantly blew the lot on god knows what. His parents went nuts saying that he shouldn't be allowed to manage his own money, blaming his support worker yet his condition isn't bad enough to say he wasn't capable to manage his own affairs. Besides which his support worker cannot make that decision anyway. So what next? Boot him out? Give him more money!?!?! There's no easy answers.
Then again, I have a friend who has absolutely nothing wrong with her and she'd have no problems dipping into her rent and not pay it to fund a night around town. Our sympathy with the latter group of people would naturally be a lot lower. But if she got booted out, what happens to her kids?
I guess what I'm saying is the world is grey, not black & white.
I thought one of the reasons for paying LL directly was to encourage LL to take on tenants on low incomes because the rent was guaranteed.
Unfortunately not. Many LL's have found to their huge cost that council's can claw back HB which have been paid directly to the landlord if it later turns out the tenant was not entitled to it.
So now many LL's are stuck in a dilemma. Do you ask for it directly from the tenant and risk not getting paid? Or get it from the council and risk a large clawback later? That added on top of the fact many insurance companies won't let you rent to anyone on DSS, it doesnt make it easy to let to someone on benefits.
Is the main change looked at in this the frequency of payment, the fact it is now monthly rather than 2 weekly?
MinitheMinx, it is already difficult to rent privately if you're in receipt of TC (without HB) because when the letting agents do their credit checks they also check how much you earn, and a lot of them don't count TC as income. Or maintenance, come to that.
Anyway, surely the main issue with UC is that many people are going to be worse off under it, regardless of the frequency of payments. It doesn't much matter a damn how often it is paid - if it is less than the benefits that people are getting at the moment then yes they will be more likely to fall into arrears, have problems with debt, be made homeless etc. That to my mind is a much bigger worry.
There's no suggestion that anyone received less money Wallison... that's not the point of the article. The main differences highlighted are that recipients got cash monthly rather than weekly and that it went direct to them rather than paid out to the housing association. It's not therefore a numbers problem, it's something different at play that has to do with setting priorities, personal responsibility and money management.
Which leads to so many questions for which there will be no one answer. Questions about transition, about capability, about the function of state about education. Even simplifying a system can be complex.
Thank you Wallison, I am a bit ignorant of all the finer points. I must do some reading!
Not only is it very worrying but the whole thing is fascinating because LL have always been in the main winners. Private property and rent is a way in which the rich and indeed in recent years the not so rich but speculative home owners have been able to consolidate wealth, save for old age, make money to reinvest or simply top up income. Now, with more and more people in receipt of benefits LL may have to take a hit, isn't the UC/HB element going to be capped? how will this impact upon rental values I wonder and how will it impact therefore on house prices?
Aside from that though, I do know several single mothers, much like niceguy describes who will not put rent at the top of their priorities, traditionally those in social housing, would be re-housed following eviction and these people are going to suffer for their oversight, it will be difficult to distinguish between wanton ignorance and vulnerability Homeless has increased hasn't it by 25% ???? I'm sure it can only get worse.
"Aside from that though, I do know several single mothers, much like niceguy describes who will not put rent at the top of their priorities, "
Single mothers are they who have no idea of priorities and a bit thick with money? Very tabloid original ....
I know, I know, why lie though. Who are these people that claim benefits and HB? the same people. Many are single mothers. If people lack basic budgeting skills is it their fault, if the lack rational thought and forward palnning? why is that?
I've never come across a landlord prepared to let to anyone on benefits at all including housing benefit so I doubt UC will have much of an impact. I accept there probably are such landlords around.
There is always this issue of whether you give people all the money and make them budget. I gave my children at university their allowance by standing order weekly so they never ran out of money. On the other hand other parents might say giving it once a term makes the child learn how to budget.
My only hope is UC eventually saves us all a lot of money. In the early stages it does not - IDS has had to get extra not less money for it so if it saves anything it will be in a very long time and the pathetically high new benefits cap of £500 a week when it comes in is not exactly low.
^I accept there probably are such landlords around.
There are plenty. A significant portion of the annual £22bn HB bill goes to private landlords.
Still, UC will definitely cost less because fewer people will qualify for it. The ones who won't are the ones on the lowest incomes, but who cares about them?
If what is suggested in the article is right, and a large proportion of people that have to claim benefits for their housing costs do stop paying their rent, then even more private landlords will refuse to take them as tenants.
This might have the benefit of making many MNers stop complaining that so much tax money is paying of landlords mortgages, but where does it leave the tenants and the landlords?
In theory, it is a good idea to make people budget on a monthly basis to prepare them for working, but landlords shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of their rent not being paid.
There is already a massive problem with the way that benefits are paid. A lone parent on income support, for example, will get his/her money in dribs and drabs throughout the month - HB, CTC, IS and maintenance if s/he gets it are all paid on different days and calculated in different ways. This, and not poor money management skills, makes it difficult to budget. Paying the UC portion of HB in the way described will just exacerbate this, if it is not calculated pcm. What I mean is that if it's every four weeks like TC, then the person receiving it won't get the full amount of rent in most months.
For example, say someone has a rent of £700pcm. 700 x 12 /52 x 4 = £646. That means that their rent is going to be short by £54 most months, although they will be able to catch up if they get a month with two payments in, but that could take over a year. Given that most people already do not get their full rent covered by HB and presumably won't under UC either as I have seen no headlines about the benefit being more generous than the current system, this is going to be a problem, as money is tight enough anyway, especially for people who are unemployed.
Granted that paying weekly also means there are months where the full rent is not covered, but there are more five-week months so the claimant can 'catch up' a bit more easily.
Also, the problem with a four-weekly cycle of payment is that it 'slips' each month. What is the use of getting the UC money on the 14th if your rent is due on the 1st? At the moment, with weekly payments, people can budget and set a little money (the HB) aside each week so that they can pay the rent. If all benefits are going to be being paid at once, on a day that doesn't coincide with their biggest outgoing (rent) it would be extremely difficult to budget for.
Like I said, it isn't down to poor money management and it is extremely condescending to say so. People on limited incomes - whether in work or reliant solely on benefits - get by right now by budgeting weekly. It's hard, but most people do it by setting money aside. With one lump sum payment, this will not be possible. Presumably the people that the BBC are talking about have been on in-work or out-of-work benefits before the study was undertaken and were managing their money before. If they suddenly stop being able to manage their money at the same time as the time that the way their benefits are paid to them changed, then surely it is the change that has caused this, rather than their money management skills suddenly going out of kilter for some mysterious reason.
Never had housing benefit.
we rent privatly through agents.
we would like to move but cost of agency fees, deposit, 2months rent upfront and would want a long term rent in specific area due to kids schools.
We lived here 7years and never been late with rent, rent goes up annually.
We cant get social housing or afford to buy.
My freind with 1child lives in council flat.
she fell behind with rent unsure why -bit odd.
she rang council as is paying arrears back in dribs and drabs
she recently got small inheritance to which I said must be great to start clean slate no debts but she said no she has an arrangement why pay them earlier she spent money on other things.
during uni was once late with rent due to bank error and landlord got well arsey.
I have couple nice landlords too.
so dont know if fact its council shes more relaxed.
Admittidly I wouldent want to live there cant understand why she doesnt do more to move if shes that unhappy.
Im not sure if she gets housing benefit
Wallison, how on earth do you think most people manage to budget?
It is not 'extremely difficult' to budget when your biggest expenses go out at a different time than they go in, it's what everyone who doesn't claim benefits has to do, often on less, or the same amount of money!
This is about taking responsibility and not relying on the state to do every little thing. If you are entitled to HB then you are entitled everyone deserves a home but surely if you are receiving the money you can be trusted to pass it on?
I guess is situation is as bad as op says then no wonder private landlords are concerned.
I think what gets me is social housing is cheaper than market rent.
if they say have rent of £97 a week which freind does 2bed flat and housing benefit covers most of that then surly they very lucky as housings the biggest outgoing.
Most people I know their rent or their mortgage non negociable they make it a priority.
Ours is standing order and we recently manged to get date changed as dh changed jobs with diffrent paydate.
tax credits/cb has option of weekly or 4weekly payment.
dont get tax credits now but cb date changes every month its never same date.
Only social housing has option of paying rent weekly all; privates lets i seen are monthly.
If we make it hard enough they might get out there and get jobs and claim no housing benefit and no tax credits like so many hard working people. They might even unbelievable as it sounds actually support themselves and their families.
There are plenty of hard working people who claim HB and TC.
And just how exactly are people supposed to 'get jobs' when there are five unemployed people for every vacancy, in addition to the one in ten people who are working part-time but would like to work full time?
I think the main issue is if it's paid calendar monthly or four-weekly. If it's four-weekly, people will get into difficulties as I outlined above, because in most four-week periods there are monthly outgoings that will just not be covered. At the moment, with different benefits coming in on different days according to different cycles, by budgeting weekly people can get over that. Yes, most of the time there is not 'enough' money but with a bit of juggling around that can be overcome. If everything comes in four-weekly in one lump sum, people will no longer be able to do that. Sure, they'll have one month in say every 10 or so where they get two payments, but by then they'll be evicted.
And I would be very surprised if UC would be paid pcm.
And mam29 would you prefer to bring up your children on your own and live on a council estate? If not, I don't know what you're bellyaching about.
Lots of working people have to juggle things at the end of the onto until the next pay day. There is no reason why benefit claimants shouldn't have to do the same.
I don't claim benefits, but I've still had to wait until I've been paid to put petrol in my car, or wait to get grocery shopping. We have even had to ask the gas and electric company to delay taking their direct debit for a week at times when we are really short because something has come up. Where is the big drama in expecting people who get given their money for nothing to do the same?
Onto should be month! No idea how auto correct worked that one out!
"If you pay the LL's directly then it's taking responsibility away from the individual "
i dont really see why this is a problem TBH. (i'm a private tenant and i receive HB into my account BTW) if people are being paid HB to pay their rent then it's going to go to the LL anyway. nobody suggests that the money for free school dinners or prescriptions should be paid to the claimant in order for them to have the responsibility themselves of paying for it. it seems to work fine that they dont ever see that money in their account. why not the same with HB as it is specifically for rent?
It was on R4 this morning that there is a rising tide of "underemployed" some 3 million people do not currently either earn enough or have available to them enough hours. The number of people unable to earn enough despite being employed is rising. Employers are either not offering full time or living costs are outstripping earnings (well there's a surprise)
I seriously question where these jobs are going to come from Xenia and Fredo. Ozzy is shrinking the economy with every passing day!
The unemployment numbers are falling but "underemployment" is becoming a huge problem.
I agree with wallison, I used to work for the L.A and we were paid every 4 weeks, once a year we received our salary x two which was great, I saved mine but that is because the salary was more than enough to live on.
The fact is, it is always easy to budget with more rather than less money
mam29 social housing is and should remain IMO cheaper than private rent, at least all the time private rent is day light robbery.
It has been a problem for landlords in the past because they have found themselves with demands from the council to pay back money they have been paid because their tenant has claimed for money they are not entitled to. If the tenant isn't entirely honest about their situation and doesn't notify the right people when they have a change in circumstances, the landlord becomes liable for their tenants debt if they have had the money paid directly to them. Whereas if the tenant receives too much money in HB but pays it to the LL themselves, then they are liable for any overpayments made.
It's really not surprising that landlords don't want to accept applications from people who can't afford to pay for their own housing.
Yes but the thing with four-weekly benefits is that for most months it just isn't enough - it isn't the full entitlement for a calendar month, yet payments need to be made on a calendar month basis. Also the payment date changes every month. So you might start out with being paid say on the 1st, which is when your rent goes out. So far so good, although you are already 'behind' on what you need for that calendar month. But you switch the heating off for a couple of nights or don't cook at the end of the last week to save on gas, and you get by. The next month your benefit comes through on the 31st, but that's ok because you save it and pay your rent on the 1st. But what about a couple of months down the line when the money comes in on the 20th? Or the 15th? You need to put petrol in the car to get to work. You've already had six months of not getting enough money to get by, and you've cut back as much as you can, even on essentials like food and gas/electricity. You've still got to live for another two weeks and then find rent money on top of that. You're not going to hit a month with two lots of payments for say another four months or so. This is completely different to budgeting on a calendar month basis.
Of course if it's paid per calendar month then that's different, but I haven't been able to find out if it is going to be paid per calendar month or every four weeks.
Lets hops it is going to be paid monthly. If they do, I wonder if they will change CB too.
if that's the concern then the regulations need to change so that regardless of where the money is paid to the tenant is responsible for paying back teh overpayment. it isn't the LL fault if someone chooses to pay their rent with money they aren't entitled to. it is the tenant who chose to do that and they should be liable to pay it back, either through a debt repayment plan if working or through having it taken back from their other benefits. and as UC is going to be combining all benefits it wont be hard to get the money back of the tenant.
I have just had a look at the DWP website, I find this......
smooth the transitions into and out of work, supporting a dynamic labour market
I bet, a dynamic labour market means different things depending upon whether you are a workers or an employer. I don't know whether we want a nation of temps, supported by the tax payer. Is that not more subsidy to businesses???????
sorry my last post was in response to outraged.
I would doubt very much if it's going to be paid calendar monthly - no benefits ever have been, because of the way that entitlements are worked out - eg 'The govt calculates that you need £x to live on each week' etc.
I agree, Minitheminx. A dynamic labour market means more zero hours/limited hours contracts where an employee is literally at the employer's beck and call and more shifting on and off out-of-work benefits because of this.
So this system of UC isn't really about making work pay or getting people back into work or making the transition into work easier for the worker. It isn't even about saving tax payers money In fact it seems that it will create a docile workforce and it matters not whether they are in work or out of work.....it only matters that they are responsive to the demands of employers. It seems to endorse short term contracts, minimum wages and minimum hours.
Yes. It is just about subsidising employers who, if they had to treat their workers with any kind of consistency or pay them fairly, would go under. Ie shit businesses. If any govt was serious about making work pay then they would do away with zero/limited hours contracts and raise the minimum wage. But neither the tories nor labour will do this. The problem isn't scroungers, or people who can't budget properly, or transitions into work. It's high living costs - especially housing, which is just fucking insane - and low wages. Unless and until any govt admits this and does something about it, then the situation will remain the same.
I agree living costs are to high in relation to average income, but I don't think UC is about subsidising employers. Much of it will be paid to people who don't work.
Working people will be eligible for it too, just as already most people who claim HB are in work. The only people who won't be eligible - as far as I can see - are people who work part-time ie people who are the lowest decile of the working poor - the 'underemployed' as that R4 feature spoken about above talked of. This to me is madness, as it penalises those who would rather take a job - any job - than live off benefits alone.
I'm not sure, isn't it meant to do away with the 16 hr rule?
Even unemployment benefits are a type of indirect subsidy to employers thoughFreddo because having a larger pool of unemployed people gives employers a lot of leverage over pay and conditions. At a subtle level it sends the message to workers to just suck it up! think how many people now live in fear of being laid off or having their contracts altered. If demand isn't restored to the real economy soon then more people will be laid off at a time when Ozzy and chums are going to give employers the right to offer (worthless) shares instead of employment rights. At a not so subtle level it puts money in the pockets of unemployed people to spend with said businesses, businesses which have never contributed to that workers income and many of whom also avoid paying corporation tax here. How many people on benefits save money shopping on ebay.......where does ebay pay it's taxes?
It's very easy to blame the individual and assume they are incompetent or bad. But that's misleading. You need to look at what actually happens and why people get into difficulty. Wallison's explained how the individual is actually at the mercy of a chaotic payments schedule - and how you can be left short of the rent money most months even if over a year you are in theory getting enough (and with caps on housing benefit, many people will be short of the rent full stop). What's more, many people suffer from sudden changes in their benefits - mistakes are common. You can't rely on a certain amount of money coming in one one known day every month.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has studied this and says universal credit could leave working people www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/universal-credit-could-trap-people-poverty strugging with an even more chaotic benefits system.
Yes. At least at the moment with different benefits being paid on different cycles, you will have a couple of months in the year with 'double payments' of one benefit or another as they each happen on different times. This allows for weekly budgeting and juggling things around. This won't happen if everything is paid on the same four-weekly basis.
Another thing that is worrying is that the system will depend on people accessing their claim online - the very poorest do not have computers or internet access outside of their local library, and if they are working then that makes it even more difficult to trot along there. If a mistake happens now, it is bad enough with centralised numbers and no-one who makes decisions being available to talk to. But if you add a further level of obfuscation in making everything online, this further exacerbates the problem.
Indeed, making it online only excludes millions of people - I saw a staggering stat that 7m people in this country have never been online. The poorest and most vulnerable (and the poor and vulnerable elderly) are the least likely to have access to the internet at home and now libraries are closing or reducing their hours, how the hell are they supposed to manage?
(You'd think the govt would have noticed how badly the police and crime commissioner elections went after they decided to only make information available online... it's almost as if the buggers want to restrict access to benefits.)
Exactly. And even if they do manage to get online via a library or whatever, I bet that it will take more than one visit to sort any mistake out, and there definitely won't be any emergency cash or giro payments or whatever to help people over a rough patch caused by the mistake.
The entire thing seems designed to make life even more difficult for the poorest, which when you consider that they are largely fucked because of economic circumstances waaaaay outside of their control, and likely to remain so for a long time, just seems vindictive to me.
are the govt going to provide free computer skills training for the 7 million that have never been online? are they going to pay everyone an internet element in their UC payment?
and what happens if for whatever reason talk talk or whoever are down for a day? are people going to be sanctioned if they miss their deadlines as a result?
Some of the poor and elderly or people with disabilities, life limiting conditions etc, even if the library were not closing, wouldn't be able to access the facilities. What about people who are sight impaired, are they going to make RNIB or whoever aware that these people will need help.
I agree, I think they are trying to make it very much harder for people to claim.
To claim that UC is some sort of weird subsidy to businesses is frankly ridiculous. If you truly believe that that then so is tax credits & housing benefit etc.
The whole online only thing is also a piss poor argument. It's the 21st century. We have computers now. If governments were never allowed to move forwards I guess we'd all still be running around in horse & carts for fear of putting blacksmiths out of work.
It reminds me of those who were against the change to Chip & Pin in case the vulnerable couldn't handle it. I've never seen anyone who didn't understand it.
Some people like my very own mother wouldn't have a clue about the computer. It's true. But she can ask someone for help. If someone is very vulnerable or has special needs then surely they already have someone who can help them. Friend, family, carer? Heck, if a stranger asked me for help I'd happily spend a few hours with them taking them through the forms.
Universal Credit will not be perfect. No system is perfect. I'm sure people will find someone who loses out. And I'm sure if you sit there and pick holes at it, you'll find something to criticise. But for me, as long as the overwhelming majority get a better service from the new system then I'd say it's a step in the right direction.
Hahahaha niceguy you have finally lost the plot, or your senses. Chip and pin what a wonderful invention a gift to fraudsters and identity theirs across the world. Is anything done to combat this fraud, why yes blame the people who use their cards in a manner that allows their details to be observed. Except banks have been forced to accept that gangs are operating on a massive scale using many different scams to get card details. So this rush to computers is acceptable because the damage and the mistakes are just like collateral damage. Meanwhile again the mess will be left to the claimants to sort out.
Your lovely assertion that people with special needs have people to help them belies your own philosophy of government cuts. You have argued time and again that cuts are needed, well tell you what buddy the cuts are to local services provided by councils and charities so that this army of people who will be helping people just do not bloody exist. Even if they did back to chip and pin, your not supposed to tell people your number, but your happy for very private matters like people having to pee in a bucket cos they cannot get to the toilet to be broadcast, as well as NI numbers, bank details, in fact all the things that identity fraudsters need.
Last but not least, we already have millions in unclaimed benefitshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17139088 mostly because people have difficulty accessing the system. Well this will soar and people will lose money, homes, and health because yes in this technology savvy age, people not just the old but plenty of all ages prefer to talk to a human. Bring back proper dap offices staffed with people who know what their talking about, offering a personal service that will weed out the fraud as well as help the needy. Fund public services and save the country a fortune.
The wiki entry on it is a reasonable summary
"The Universal Credit was championed by Iain Duncan Smith and announced at the conference of the Conservative Party in 2010. The coalition aims to implement it fully over ten years and two parliaments, intending to cut costs and to ensure that people are better off in work. Unlike some existing benefits such as Income Support that have a 100% withdrawal rate, the Universal Credit will be gradually tapered away, like tax credits and Housing Benefit so that people can take a part-time job and still be allowed to keep most of the money they receive.
There will be substantially higher earnings disregards in Universal Credit but these will be reduced where any housing support is payable.
By comparison, Jobseeker's Allowance allows only £5 of earnings disregard per week for single adults. Thus, people working eight hours a week for £6 an hour would earn £48 pounds a week, but would have £43 a week deducted from their benefit and would therefore only gain £5 extra per week by working. In a minority of cases, people could lose significantly more by no longer qualifying for Housing Benefit, though not being able to work sufficient hours to qualify for working tax credits and therefore be 'better off' claiming benefit rather than working.
When implemented, Universal Credit will drastically affect the low-paid self-employed as well as anyone who makes a tax loss.[2] It is proposed that Universal Credits, like the current Working Tax Credits, will be "limited to those who exceed the 'floor of assumed income'" based on the National Minimum Wage.[3] As well as directly affecting self-employed people, excluded from any set minimum wage, it could also affect employees who receive below the minimum wage, hitting the poorest workers the hardest (however no legal workers should be earning below minimum wage, so only illegal workers would be affected).
The Tax Credits being incorporated into the new Universal Credit currently taper, with a withdrawal rate of 41% (2011/12 figure) once the recipient earns above £6420 (2009/10 figure). This income will have already been subject to 11% national insurance, plus 20% income tax on any income above the personal allowance."
From the DWP document about universal credit.
The Department for Work and Pensions recognises that there will continue to be a minority of people who cannot use online channels. For these people we will offer alternative access routes, predominantly by phone but also face to face for those who really need it.
So there you have it. People who cannot access the Internet will not be forced to or face losing their benefits.
Erm Leith I think you illustrate my point perfectly about over expecting.
Since the introduction of Chip & Pin, card fraud has dropped to it's lowest level for 11 years
Noone seriously expected it to drop to zero. But it was a pretty big improvement yes? Or in your world is it only worth doing if the benefits are absolute?
My OH works in the care industry and organises care for vulnerable people. They've never been busier and cannot get enough staff. So firstly it's unfair to say that due to government cuts they don't get any help. They may get less help than before but help is still there. Care is now having to be prioritised. Sometimes its a shame to have to tell someone who is lonely that they cannot provide the same number of hours as before when often the support worker is there almost acting like a friend. Other times it's having to tell someone that they must wipe their own backsides from now on. But my point is that help is still there and they are crying out for more care workers. The biggest issue my OH's company has is finding people willing to work the hours necessary since it's not a 9-5 job. Oh and travel. People don't like traveling around believe it or not. You'd probably shed a tear too at how many fail the aptitude test. With hard questions like "How much change do you expect from £20 if you buy £15.87 worth of goods?". Especially when they are allowed to use a calculator!
An issue (granted) is her company's insistence on using zero hour contracts for the first three months. This is mainly to protect the company from idiots getting through the interview stage. What they then do is just give those less/no hours. Hard workers who prove themselves practically get as many hours as they want and after the trial period they get a fixed contract.
So in this case my hope is that UC will encourage more people to apply for these sorts of jobs. Because god knows they need better quality candidates.
Niceguy, while I agree with your post and completely see your point, it's a sad fact that the care sector will not get an abundance of better quality job candidates until they stop paying peanuts. I realise they can't afford to pay more, but this is one area that I think the government does need to inject money into. Caring is a difficult job and people who do it need to possess a lot of skills to be good at it. It is very sad that this type of work attracts unskilled unqualified people who have no choice but to work for a pittance. Both the carers and the clients deserve better.
The last Job I did for the L.A was reassessing vulnerable people so their packages of care could be cut. This was 11 years ago now, this is not new, this started under labour
Outraged, I agree. Caring is a job for those with patience and empathy in their bucketloads. It's not something I could do at all.
The world has changed. We need to all work more flexibly. The era of jobs for life have long vanished. Full time work is/has diminished. Many of us have second jobs now. Rightly or wrongly those are the facts on the ground.
So it only seems logical to me that the benefits system adapts along with us. One of the most common stumbling blocks to recruitment for my OH's company is that people cannot work on 0 hour contracts because they'd lose their benefits and if work dried up, they'd have a huge delay not to mention complication in getting their new application going.
I'm sure there are no shortage of good people out there who could work and would be willing to as long as they didn't face a suicidal cashflow issue if things didn't work out.
UC won't be perfect but it seems from what i've read a step in the right direction. I'm not wholly convinced that in practice it won't go tits up thanks to government track record's on large IT projets but that's another subject entirely.
Indeed - stop paying peanuts and stop it with the zero hours contracts. There is plenty of money to be made in care work - it's just that the people who actually do the work don't get to see it.
Back to UC, this:
^it could also affect employees who receive below the minimum wage, hitting the poorest workers the hardest (however no legal workers should be earning below minimum wage, so only illegal workers would be affected).
is what I was talking about. It doesn't only affect illegal workers but also part-time workers ie the underemployed ie the poorest section of the workforce.
I should imagine another issue for your OH is that people don't want to work zero hours contracts full stop because the people who use them are crap and exploitative.
I was discussing this with a friend yesterday. I think a hell of a lot of people are going to end up in serious trouble with their rent.
I currently get mine paid straight to the landlord and prefer it that way. However, I will pay it straight to the landlord when it is paid to me too, but I know people that just will not manage with this and will blow it all.
We also said, what about kids who's parents blow all of the money as soon as they get it ? What will they do for food for the rest of the month ??
Don't get me stared on zero hour contracts. Bloody useless to anyone except students.
Zero hours contracts should be made fucking illegal. If you have such poor management skills that you don't even know how many man-hours you need each week, you shouldn't be in business. And as for the point about weeding out weaker applicants, why not just have a proper interview process in the first place? Again, another sign of poor management skills.
In a sense all those of us who are self employed have zero hours contracts and we have to manage. UC will improve, not make worse, things for those trying to get back into full time work.
Children whose parents spend the week's wages at the pub once a week where the parents work full time have always been with it. Full time low paid workers already have to cope with budgeting. We are not asking the unemployed to do any more than full time working single parents already do do the only difference between the unemployed have about 10 - 12 hours a day more to sort it all out in whereas the working mothers particularly with 2 hour commutes have much less time.
^UC will improve, not make worse, things for those trying to get back into full time work.
By taking money off them? That's a new meaning to the word 'improve' for me?
And the self-employed will be hit as well, if they don't make minimum wage x 35 each week. So it's bye-bye to entreprenuership.
Yes only the already rich or women hooked up to indulgent middle earning hubbies can now be entrepreneurial. Makes a mockery out of freedom under freemarkets.
The plan is that the self employed have one year to get their business going before there are problems with UC I think. That was said in Parliament as far as I remember so it shoudl be better not worse to be self employed under UC. Anyway if they need th emoney they might work harder at their self employed work rather thanjust messing around and if we can make the benefits thing much harder for all then the masses of scroungers we all know that there are will just not bother to claim and live on the money they already earn on the side.
Yes, yes, there are 'masses of scroungers'.
Even the left acknowledge there are. Loads of them claim to have non physical illnesses they don't have to claim higher benefits too. Anyway the difficulty is working out who could work and who is avoiding it and who is working and claiming when they ought not to. There is a veritable army of people out there who never do a day's work in their lives If we can make benefits so very unpleasant at least some of those might be forced back into doing an honest day's toil.
Where are these jobs going to come from Xenia?
There are masses of scroungers; they are called bankers. And more broadly the super-rich who don't bother paying tax like the little people. And multi-billion pound corporations ditto.
Amazon, for instance, who claim all their profits are made in Luxembourg on sales in England, yet don't allow their staff to apply the same flexible attitude to the rules. If someone working in a minimum wage job at Amazon is late three times, they can be sacked, without even being allowed to attend the meeting that decides their fate. One rule for the workers, another for the bosses...
There are hardly any high paid bankers in the UK. Most people who work for banks are not on very high sums. Very very few leading bankers work short hours. Most bankers are good. Most of the super rich pay much more tax than the poor.
Amazon is able to pay its staff because it runs the company well and we all benefit from that.
Boris J in India this week suggested we have a top rate of tax of 30% as they have in India (and they have there a 10% rate for freelancers). He seems the only politician with sense and a clear view of how to ensure business starts to do better in the UK which of course it the only thing that will really benefit the poor.
'One of the most common stumbling blocks to recruitment for my OH's company is that people cannot work on 0 hour contracts because they'd lose their benefits and if work dried up, they'd have a huge delay not to mention complication in getting their new application going.
I'm sure there are no shortage of good people out there who could work and would be willing to as long as they didn't face a suicidal cashflow issue if things didn't work out.'
0 hours contracts don't work even if you're not on benefits! How are you supposed to pay your rent and bills if you have no idea what your cashflow will be? How do you even get a flat with that? No landlord or agency is going to take a tenant like that.
0 hours contracts have nothing to do with benefits and everything to do with treating employees like shit. People work for money, not the potential of it.
'Oh and travel. People don't like traveling around believe it or not.'
From the threads on here from people working in this industry, people don't like to lose money in work for travelling on the job in their own vehicle with no compensation (especially because using your car for work means you have to pay higher insurance premiums). This industry commonly expects employees to use their own car to travel not insignificant distances to appointments with no compensation. So this drags their peanuts pay even lower.
The self employed though have to live like this. I am on zero hours contracts ni a sense. No one owes anyone a particular life or living. If the state has no money to pay the poor or voters choose not to pay the poor so much then that is how it is and then people vote with their feet and eg the Irish are back emigrating again. It is simply how things are. If we got the economy going and good workers couldn't be had for work nor money zero hours contracts woudl go as everyone would be snapping up every free worker there is. Sadly we are not in that position now.
Boris J in India this week suggested we have a top rate of tax of 30% as they have in India
Income inequality in India is far in excess of the problem here and in many other parts of the world. The poor live on less than $2 a day, have no access to health, education and welfare. The place is full of disease but has some of the best hospitals in world, hospitals that do not serve the needs of it's impoverished people. Xenia.......you want India?????? If you lack the money for the one way fare, I'll pay for you to go, I can even put you up for free.
World income inequalities over the past century? Studies using longer time series conclude that income inequality has been constantly increasing since the early 19th century. Milanovic (20090) ooh what happened here in the 19th century.....?<scratches chin>
"Global income inequality rose steadily from 1820 to 2002, with asignificant increase from 1980 onwards" who came to power in 1979?
Inequality increased globally between the early 1980s and 1990s thanks to Thatcher and Regan.
approximately 1.2 billion were living on less than $1.25 per day in 2007 (22 percent of the world population) and about 2.2 billion on less than $2 per day (or about 40 percent of the world population).The wealthiest 61 million individuals (or one percent of the global population) had the same amount of income as the poorest 3.5 billion (or 56 percent) as of 2007
China and Indiathe most populous countries in the worldstand as examples of high growth (average annual GDP per capita growth rates of 10.1 and 6.3 percent, respectively, between 1990 and 2008/9)and increasing income inequality
Which proves there is no link between fostering a good business environment, high profits and deregulated markets with the welbeing or wealth of a country and it's citizens.
The fact is, if you impoverish workers you will prevent growth, both India and China rely upon exports to increase GDP but their states collect little in tax and therefore provide little in the way of welfare.
A country that provides a good place for business isn't the same as a rich country, the two are actually under neo-liberalisation not the same.
I really do fear that people on the right are thick, thick thick. or wilfully blind because it suits them?
My taxes pay for a good few benefits claimants. If you drive people like me from the UK the poor who are left behind can smile because everyone earns £20k or less but the poor will starve.
Yes, I know that China Communist has 34- 1 income inquality and we only have 1 - 5 or something here and in the US. That is the amazing thing. Thus capitalism one can conclude is best and ensures best income inequalities do not exist.
I agree that the rural poor in China and India are not well provided for. However their economies are doing pretty well and it we do need more business and trade. If Boris J is out there banging the drum for teh UK (and Prince Andrew has done a very good similar job in the Middle East) that can help the British poor a lot more than other things. Meanwhile the new socialist Government in France is messing it up so much that the French are flocking to London.
Your taxes also cover the taxes of the rich buggers who use every trick in the book to avoid paying their fair share - individuals and corporations.
The rich pay much more tax than the poor. In fact 25% of us only are net payers and a whopping 75% of British people take out more than they put in (but clearly do not appreciate the 25% at all of course).
Inequality and taxation needs a global response, it won't get one because capitalism (or rather neo-liberal capitalism and globalisation) will not allow this. The reason is simple, globalisation and capitalism is about competition between individuals, between businesses and between states. Despite the rhetoric about shrinking the state, the state is very much alive and kicking in the form of the public private security nexus. Right wing states are very keen to spend on wars and national security.
Xenia, you have been keen in past to say you are in favour of libertarianism?
The problem with the system we have now is that huge levels of inequality lead to social unrest ultimately. New laws are being passed all the time that interfere with peoples liberty and freedom whilst banks & corporations are cut free from all regulation. In the states they have detention centres all over the place, hidden hoards of plastic coffins to cart off the dead, they spy on their citizens and they have the right to lock you up indefinately because of your political views. They could wipe out their population very easily with something as innocent seeming as a vaccine. Vaccination is mandatory in the states. Does that sound like a free country?
It is the interference in the free market which causes the problems not that banks have no regulation. We have very regulated banks. We don't even allow them to fail.
Competition is a good, both between people and more generally.
I don't sing the praises of the USA either although it is a lot better than plenty of other nations such as Russia, China and Saudi.
The rich have more money than the poor, so of course they pay more if you literally count the units. That's hardly surprising, I don't know why you think it's worth saying. But more as a share of income is another thing entirely. I believe the highest marginal rate of tax (or deduction, call it what you will) is paid by people coming off benefits and starting to work, or increasing their hours - for some people, I believe something like 90p out of every pound can be taken.
Over the past three or four decades the rich have been getting vastly richer, the middle staying about the same in terms of purchasing power and the poor getting even poorer. The 'boom' years were a boom for the rich, and in theory for those with houses. Sob stories from the rich about how deserving they are and how much they contribute are just rubbish.
The UK is incredibly generous to, for example, non-doms - it is considered a tax haven on some measures. Germany taxes people on their worldwide income, yet all the people who constantly tell us we can't tax the rich also hold up Germany as an economic model.
It really depends, what people want, freedom for or freedom from.
Put simply, do you want freedom to make a million dollars when you are educationally disadvantaged, unable to get investors to back you, don't have a great idea, live in a shack in the mid west, or a tent along the roadside, or do you want FREEDOM FROM hunger, poverty, the cold, disease......
Now, all of human existence has been about creating the conditions in which we are FREE FROM. All human need can be met using this as a starting point. I don't want freedom to watch 50 TV channels or buy 50 pairs of shoes, I'm neither dumb or a centipede.
Capitalism is great at creating the conditions which create the need, in the same way that capitalism can create a commodity to fulfil a need. What it isn't though is sustainable.
edam, it is worth saying because it is arguably unjust. If you had a capped flat tax and you kept every penny over a certain amount of tax paid that would be much fairer and encourage people to work harder and thus the poor would benefit.
I certainly suppose today's leak that pension tax relief may be limited as any movement to simple flat taxes without tax breaks and rebates and allowances is good news.
It does not matter if capitalism is not sustainable. The fact China and India will want what the US/UK have will simply reduce slightly the short tiny period of time mankind is on the planet. We are here for just a eye blink of time.
Flat taxes are clearly not fair because everyone would have to pay the same rate, whether they were a prince or a pauper.
This wont work on top of claimants having to pay council tax and bedroom tax if they choose to stay in their homes. I not sure any of the reforms will work.93% of new claiments are in work. ATOS has already cost 25m in appeals for the first half of 2012. Figures show benefit fraud 1.2bn, unclaimed benefits 16bn, tax avoidance 100+bn.
Theres also the HB cap, so if you cant find a property in a high rent area from your UC you will need to cover the extra from the benefit to top it up.
All this is through lack of affordable housing. We had more social housing than any country but it got sold off on the RTB scheme which raised 18bn, non of which got put into new builds. This is the legacy, a 2bn HB bill. A 2 bed ex local authority in London was coming up as between 250pw and up to 400pw. A family of 4 gets 252 per week + HB and CT benefits.
Fifi I agree entirely, I would add the chronic rush to the bottom in pay and working hours. We work longer than most European countries yet we remain one of the worse for personal debt, children's happiness, low wages etc.
Most middle class people cannot afford to liver in central London so I don't see why those hard working tax payers should pay taxes to support housing benefit claimants in expensive bits of London.
Tax avoidance is lawful. Every mumsnetter who claims her single person allowance and sticks money in an ISA tax avoids and good for them. So to assess the loss of tax avoidance is a bit pointless. If the state want to restrict tax relief on pensions as it is about to do then it changes the law to ensure the relief is restricted.
Flat taxes are the fairest of all. If say everyone pays 20% flat tax with a cap of say a maximum tax of £100k a year you still have some lazy so and so earning little and paying hardly any tax and still getting the same NHS benefits and roads as someone working 50 weeks a year as I do who might be paying loads of that capped flat tax - still unfair but better than now.
93% of new housing benefit claimants are in work, if they move they will loose their jobs if they cant afford to pay the transport to get there or cant find a new job in the lower rent area. Some claimants have already been moved out and guess what the towns they have moved to don't want 'undesirables' there and are moaning about the lack of housing.
Ok Xenia lets have a flat tax of 45%. I trust you will have no problem with that
Also as Fifi has said a large number of those on cb and hb will be working, so if they are not to be susidised by tax payers who will do their jobs?
That's the problem Leithlurker, the way they have done the reform is unfair as it covers such a wide variety of people. If your in work in a high rent area and claim HB to top up your rent your stuffed. Simple fact it the housing was sold and not replaced. RTB landlords have snapped up a lot of the local authority housing so you end up paying double what the council tenant next door pays. Great if your lucky enough to have a council house, not so great if your in a private
I agree fifi, the outrage about people living in overcrowded and bad housing will soon drown out all this crap we have about hb. Who will the cost fall on to fix these new slums, why the tax payer of course. Thanks maggie say the rich.
I imagine it is rather left wing but the BBC radio special this week - The State of Welfare is probably worth listening to
Lots of good points here. I would only add that isn't the £1.2bn figure fraud and error?
And the housing benefit bill is actually more than £20bn, every year. That's what it is costing us to house the poor including the working poor, because council houses have been sold off and the people who would previously have been in them are now renting privately - in some cases as Fifis said renting the exact same house that they could have got a proper secure council tenancy for, except that now they owe double what the rent would be, which they claim in HB which then goes to the landlord to pay for his investment. It's crackers.
I think some figures i read this week said housing benefit is 20bn. The majority of the welfare bill is pensions followed by HB. The actual amount going to claimants is not that much of the whole welfare bill.
I read an interesting article regarding the under 25 welfare bill, i will see if i can dig it out. Off the top of my head HB going to the council was 730m and housing benefit going to private landlords was in the billions. The HB which goes to the council is sort of recycled once the costs are taken out for running the properties where as the majority of the money was going to private landlords and not back into the system.
Said like that Wallison it sounds like private land lords are stitching up the tax payer.
Yes the 1.2bn will be error as well
Fifi, are social LL classed as private or the same as Council ? money that goes to social LL wouldn't be recycled would it?
I read somewhere that a freedom of information request has repeatedly been turned down, in relation to the accounts of the largest social housing LLs. It is proposed that social LL have huge black holes in their balance sheets. Many councils sold their housing stock at silly prices. In Mid Sussex they sold to (I think it was downland, could have been more than one) downland housing for less than £5,000 per house. Begs the question why are social LL in debt?
Im not sure where the money from social LL's go, you mean like housing associations. I would imagine it just goes into their accounts unlike the council. Yes there are houses next to me which went for 8,000. My mam bought hers in the 90's for 14,000 kept it the 3 years and sold it for 112,000. she then moved to a private estate. The house is in the next street to me. Someone bought it and it got repossessed. I seen one of the BTL LL's boards go up and had a dig about. It sold at auction for 72,000 and was up for rent for 600pcm. Mines the same house off the council and my rent's 360 pcm. There's loads of ex council houses on my estate bought up between 2 BTL LL's, they must wait for the auctions. Not sure where the 18bn from RTB went but it doesn't seem to have gone into replenishing the housing stock.
What if you were housed in a crappy part of London (or wherever) and built up family and support networks there? Then say that area suddenly becomes the new and trendy place to live so house prices rocket?
Just making the point here that many of those renting and claiming HB in expensive areas might not have said "ooh that's a trendy and expensive part of London; I'll live there and top up my rent with HB".
Chances are they have been there for years.
I am not in an expensive area but I am a Carer with a disabled child who has family support locally. If I was in an expensive area in the same circumstances I would be well hacked off with people looking down their noses and judging me for daring to live near my support network.
Just saying.
That's a good point, JakeBullet. Time was when nobody wanted to live in Soho or Notting Hill or any number of places where house prices are now sky-high. Why should someone who works nearby, whose kids go to school there, who has friends and neighbours around them, have to move just because people like Xenia think they're not worthy of their postcode?
The 2 cheap flats i was looking at were £250 pw in a council tower block. Do a property search for London, the rents are huge. Think i searched in google ex local authority flat london. They are not in nice areas they are like that all over. So a family of 4 gets £252 pw in benefits to live on, any property over £250pw will take you over the £500 cap. I don't think they will be able to move everyone in London out, it's not possible when you consider i found 2 flats on 2 searches for £250 pw. People are going to end up in massive arrears/homeless and private LL's wont touch HB claimants for this reason
Not to mention the people in the areas they are moving them out to, people have already been moved out as far as Manchester. It will create an affordable housing shortage in these areas. There was a man and his wife had a nervous breakdown. SS ended up at his door and he took the 4 kids back, they rehoused him to a bigger property as they said he would be overcrowded where he was He's now been moved miles away to a town outside of London away from his support network
The R4 programme which I have listened to part of, says Beveridge set up the welfare state on the basis you took out what you paid in but there was a very minimal safety net. Also at the time most men died at or before retirement and yet we have not adapted the system to take account of men living to 75.
They compare a hard working man who is out of work with 4 children now and gets about £1650 a month including housing benefit. He would have about half as much in 1942 but a lot of things people now think are essential were not in those days.
What is this "support network" which people seem to need. No one has given me a support network. Most of us work and keep ourselves. We dont' have acres of unemployed local relatives to cook our dinners or look after our children or hold us when we cry.
Xenia, somehow it doesn't surprise me that you don't have any friends, but for most of us these things are important.
He worked Xenia, he lost his job and his support network i.e friends and family and has 4 young girls to look after. If you cant see anything wrong with that then im speechless
So you had no help Xenia and that's all the justification you need for saying others should not Ooookkkkaaayyy.
However you make a bad fist of making a good point, and that is that the welfare system, and please not welfare is not benefits. It is housing, NHS, Education, and Housing. The pillars of security as he called them, has stayed in the same moral and attitudunal focus as when they were written in the 1940's. This is why disabled people are being assessed for work that they cannot do that they will never get even if the work was their. It is why we get the attitude often seen here that the poor should be grateful for their poverty and be accepting that everyone else should get to dictate what they buy, where they buy it from, and what kind of lifestyles they should lead. It also allows people to say things like drug addicts should not get benefit, housing, health care as they "do not deserve it" Drugs were an issue back in the 1940's but no where near as bad or endemic as they are now.
Housing was meant, in fact Beveridge specificly said that council housing should be for everyone, not just the poor, absolutely for the income tax inspectors, bank workers, and essential workers. Why, because it creates communities that everyone has a say in. In short the beloved market, capatalism, and most of all the unchanged moral views of the middle classes have been the main reason why welfare is now seen as the problem.
As w3as said earlier, pensions are the largest part of the welfare Bill, Beveridge had a solution for that too. He was much in favour of Eugenics. Perhaps he would have wanted to make sure people only got a little bit of time after their working life to enjoy retirement. Then again like the other pillars he might have been far more forward thinking and said right time for a rethink.
The R4 programme is a good one. I'm still listening to it. The man with the 4 children who had many more than he could afford with the foreign wife who seems to think she is entitled to a lot more seems to have a better attitude than his wife. I do think if he cannot get a job then he should be minding the 4 children whilst she does. Most people are only out of work for up to a year so one hopes as he's keen he'll get something. He certainly did not sound like a scrounger but the basic benefits levels is much more than Beveridge expected.
I doubt Berveridge in 2012 would have suggested men of 65 with 20 years to live who are healthy should be killed off. I imagine he would suggest pension age be increased as it is being to 67.
I am not against a welfare state and indeed most people aren't although a lot of people think the incentive to work has been lost. I think it used to cost 4% our income and now it costs 14% the programmes said - that is presumably benefits and state pension. If Beveridge set it up so that most people middle class people would pay most of its costs and never benefit from it as they would not need it then perhaps we should be going to a system where you do not take out at all unless you fall on hard times for new entrants to the jobs market, not those who have worked for 50 years paying their stamp so they get their pension which would mean they had been misled for a lifetime.
Xenia, you are keen on eugenics aren't you?
This government can tweek the benefits as much as they like, they will never balance unless they build more social housing or cap private rents. There's land now with planning permission for 14,000 new homes. There's also many empty properties which could be brought up to standard and be used as social housing. Its common sense really. They can move people and cap as much as they like, it's just going to cost them more. ATOS appeal's have already cost 25 million in 6mnths. Not sure how much they have saved.
IMO this is all a knock on effect of the failure to build more housing as planned with funds raised from RTB.
Eugenics? No. I am sure I share most people's views on the subject. Obviously most people in the UK are in favour of aborting down's children and many would support techniques which means couples with a genetic problem can conceive only children who are healthy. This current generation is one of the first in history to be less healthy than its parents because of who much worse our diets and exercise amounts are than 50 years ago so I suppose we are making the species worse and worse at present.
In fact we all had fewer processed foods, a bit less food, intermittent fasting a lot of problems would go.
People on this thread might be interested in the recent report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee on Universal Credit implementation. They took written and oral evidence from a wide range of organisations, and the report was written on the basis of this evidence. The report is rather long, but the summary isn't .
I have suggested twice to MNHQ that we invite someone (eg Citizens Advice) on a webchat about UC, but I didn't receive a reply to either email. Maybe if others thought this was a good idea they could also email?
By far the biggest expenditure on welfare is pensions. People are living longer. But simply raising the retirement age isn't the answer to this - there may be longevity, but that doesn't mean people are fit to work. Once people are in their late sixties/early seventies, they often have multiple health problems which means that they just aren't employable any more. That hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is that, with lots of medication, they can stay alive longer. And thus cost more as they claim benefits for longer after they stop working. I don't really see that there is a solution to this 'problem.
Beveridge's plan was you saved and then you drew the money as needed, but the state never set it aside as a separate pot, not even I think the second pension which many people contributed too - SERPs which is perhaps why you should never trust the state over anything. Left and right can probably both agree on that.
Actuaries can work out what an individual/the state will need to set aside for someone working to age 67 and then drawing a pension for 20 or 30 years and then the rate on contribution can be fixed on that basis.
Well thats all sorted then, leave it to the actuaries, except are they not the ones that got the whole mortgage thing wrong? Or what about those that do not pay in enough. Or what about those that take twenty odd years out to care for others. Or even those that leave school with little or no ability to do the three r's, and can only work on either cash in hand or on the black economy.
The thing is Xenia that you did not ever need a "support network", add in a disabled child or other relative and you might have done.
I find it hard to accept that we should dismiss "support networks" for those who need them, it makes society seem harsh and uncaring.
Disability will always be with us, we will always need people who care for relatives and for that to happen there has to be a support network that you seem to so easily dismiss. Add in that these Carers save the taxpayer a fortune by keeping relatives at home instead of in nursing homes etc and it must at the very least break even......despite the Carer perhaps living in an expensive part of London.
The R4 programme was a good listen and the needs of society have changed since Berveridge set up the Welfare State. As you rightly say Xenia, we are living longer. As a result our health costs and other costs increase. It is right that as a society we look at this issue.
Excellent point about areas of London now being gentrified at the exclusion of workers and people that have lived in those areas for generations. It is happening the world over including India where slums are cleared to make way for capital investment. The people cleared are not offered alternative space, accommodation or compensation.
Xenia, you seem to think that people should look after themselves, part of that is looking after our own families. For people to be able to support elderly relatives and family with disabilities, they need to live near to each other. If you combine working with caring, the need to be local to your support network becomes even more crucial.
Eugenics? well, I do remember the very first time I encountered Xenia in the politics section. I haven't forgotten that you believe the poor and those on benefits have a low IQ. Or the references to Darwin and survival of the fittest.
Interesting programme on R4 today about global inequality, on at 1.45, The Global Gap
I don't think we are really disagreeing. It is people concerned about these issues who debate them. A lot of people could not care less.
I think the local issue is a red herring. Most people in the country choose to stay near relatives and an upper cap on weekly benefits of £500 a week (£26,000 a year) when it comes in will not affect them. It is a pretty high upper cap.
The cap will effect thousands of people in private housing in London and other high rent area's. High rent area does not mean nice area.
There is a fund to cushion those affected. Many full time working single mothers have to move for work so I am sure hose who do not even have a job can cope with a move too as they live at the state's and tax payers' beneficence.
It is £500 (but reduces to £350 for adults without children) a week.
It does not apply if you get working tax credit or DLA or are over 64.
Yes i read some of the council's are covering the cost of the cap and the bedroom tax. Not sure if other services will suffer due to the extra cost to the council.
I am so fortunate because when the chips were down (and really down) I was offered housing by a Housing Association, as such the changes are not going to affect me. This is what we need.....more housing available to those who need it.
Housing associations have earmarked extra funds to cover bad debt as they anticipate the number of people with extra bedrooms who will have a short fall in HB.
The bigger issue is the old though. I don't think we are doing enough about that. Even the new retirement age of 67 or whatever it will be and the new opted in (but you can opt out) second pension which is very gradually coming into force are not likely to make much difference.
UC will be administered by the DWP centrally. Unlike Local Authorities (LA) the DWP predict a considerably longer time delay in assessing a claim for UC. The DWP will expect LA's to deal with those customers who can not operate computer applications, but at the same time are pulling funding from LAs. The government are centralising a benefit to basically keep a tight rein on the welfare bill. As for tenants, it is clear with the delay in assessment they will fall behind with rent. Landlords will become agitated and ultimately there will be more homelessness. In turn this will impact on crime and the policing bill. I believe UC is one of the least thought out changes to the benefits system, and as the next few years go on, there will be civil disorder and a recession, beyond anything anyone could contemplate. Oh yes, I forgot to mention an IT system with complexity beyond the most difficult calculus you could imagine. Remember how the NHS central IT system went, oh yes. It didn't did it?
I think what gets me is social housing is cheaper than market rent.
It bloody well isn't.
The odd council housing still around is, but HA and nw builds have to charge market rent.
Start new thread in this topic | Flip this thread | Refresh the display |
This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has 140 messages.)
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.
Register nowAlready registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Talk: Customise | Unanswered messages | Getting started | Acronyms | FAQs
Threads: Active | I'm on | I'm watching | I started | Last 15 minutes | Last hour | Last Day
Please login first.


text:
You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your ReverbNation experience.
Mar 15
This Friday, 91.9 WFPK Presents Several Hundred People with very special guests Slackshop and Ranger at Headliners Music Hall. Come out and enjoy an evening of some of Louisville's finest original indie rock music!
Mar 15
This Friday, 91.9 WFPK's Live Lunch session will feature an in-house studio performance by indie rock band, Several Hundred People. Doors open at 11:30am. Reserved seating is limited.
Apr 7
Benefit for the non-profit Choices Inc. Great line up of local music. This Show Will Be Big!! Heres a link to the FB event https://www.facebook.com/events/244694255621212/
Jan 21
Nov 11
Sounds Like: Radiohead, Wilco, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, R.E.M.
Manager: Steve Morgan
Bio: Several Hundred People is a collection of five bodies, each with dozens of souls residing within, hailing from Louisville, Kentucky.
With influences ranging from Radiohead to Bob Dylan, Several Hundred People's sound is an exhilarating amalgam of familiarity and innovation twisted together like...See Full Bio
Several Hundred People has a show on 03/15/2013 at 08:00 PM @ He... in Louisville, KY http://www.reverbnation.com/c./poni/184969776 #concert
Be the first to ask Several Hundred People a question!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Top Stories
Rev. Dr. Richard Hillenbrand
"The bloom is off the rose," so the saying goes – a visual picture to drive home a deeper truth. It means simply that something is no longer seen as new or fresh or exciting. It's lost its beauty, its vitality. I saw a rose that was sent to a friend the other day, but it was sent some time ago. The petals had darkened and many had dropped. "The bloom is off the rose." Things today are not what they were. In all likelihood, you can go back and take a look at snow sculptures from Snowfest over the next week or so and notice the same thing: faded, melting, aged.
Remember "Happy New Year!" not that long ago? Those words call to mind fresh, exciting, new possibilities along with the excitement of new beginnings, or maybe even the re-making self! But by now … not so much. "The bloom is off the rose." And the same can be true for the vitality of close relationships. It can be said of people as they move into later stages of life or career. Wherever there are disappointments and dashed hopes and things not as you wish, it can feel as if the bloom has withered, faded, dropped and died.
"Well, there's a real bundle of joy!" Certainly less than satisfying, yes. So what brings hope and renewal? Not infrequently we dive into distractions and gadgets, and they command attention … for a while. "The big game" will be exciting to watch this week, but not much talked about in another month. The new smart phone or car while first bringing wonder soon becomes just a tool to do what we need.
Real renewal and re-freshment come as you, daily and moment by moment, breathe out" and get rid of what's stale and harmful, and breathe in" to repair and restore. The body does this by expelling carbon dioxide and drawing in oxygen. Christians do it in confession and forgiveness. Sin is expelled and canceled as you "send it off" and confess it to God and to those affected. And you become new and fresh again as you receive, whenever you need it, God's forgiveness and life in Jesus Christ, and pardon and re-connection with others, and even with yourself.
Jesus in the Scriptures speaks the words, behold, I am making all things new" (Rev. 21:5). While the context speaks of the end of time and a new heaven and earth, all things indicates that God's people, too, will be refreshed, perfected, glorified! That's yet in the future, but you can grab hold of a piece of that for today and now as you cast away hopelessness and doubt, and take hold of God's power for change and renewal and restored relationships in your forgiveness in Jesus Christ.


text:
Brides with Tattoos: We Want to See Your Pictures!
Did you show off your ink on your wedding day? We were inspired by this thread about a newlywed member's gorgeous wedding photo showcasing her tattoos and we want to see more pictures like this for possible inclusion in a slideshow on The Stir.
We'd love to see yours - post it here!
I don't have a picture on my computer showing the tattoo in the dress. I was wearing this dress.....
and this is the tattoo on my right shoulder, I wish you could see it in the above photo!
Quoting XForeverYoursX:I have full sleeve tattoos and had them all out!
No mine were covered. I only have two but the one that's on the back of my neck was covered with my veil.
I have a double standard. My DH has my name on his back. plus my kids names. I wouldn't like them on me. I had a fake one on that lasted a month. It started getting on my nerves and I couldn't wait for it to get off.
Quoting XForeverYoursX:I have full sleeve tattoos and had them all out!


text:
Scientists design bacteria reliant upon synthetic amino acids to contain genetically modified organisms.
Scientists design bacteria reliant upon synthetic amino acids to contain genetically modified organisms.
In Chapter 1, "Yin and Yang," author Roberta B. Ness explores the dynamic tension between innovation and risk aversion in science past and present.
Does Altruism Exist?, Ancestors in Our Genome, Fred Sanger—Double Nobel Laureate, and Stiffs, Skulls & Skeletons
Automating Drosophila behavior screens gives researchers a break from tedious observation, and enables higher-throughput, more-quantitative experiments than ever before.
Is the fear of funding and doing fundamental, risky research killing our ability to make breakthroughs?
Whole-animal, light-based imaging of infected small mammals
Researchers aim to unravel the molecular mechanisms by which a single genotype gives rise to diverse castes in eusocial organisms.
A new microscope attachment can allow smartphone users to take a closer look at fluorescently labeled DNA.
Eradication of microbial disease likely accompanied by poor quality of life for remaining species


text:
South Texas Plains • San Antonio •
One level below the downtown streets, the popular Paseo del Rio (River Walk) is edged by hotels, art and gift shops, restaurants, boutiques and live music. Scenic riverboat cruises are available.
Admission charge.
The River Walk can be accessed from various locations including the Rivercenter Mall lagoon and South Alamo, Losoya, Presa, Navarro, St. Mary's, Market, Commerce and Crockett streets.
River Walk Visit website ›
Historic | San Antonio
Arts & Culture | Crystal Beach
Arts & Culture | Canyon
Food & Drink | San Antonio


text:
NEXT: Men vs. women
What measures -- spending cuts, tax hikes, or both -- are needed to tame the budget deficit? Money magazine looks at how we got here and how big our debt really is.
Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer.
Morningstar: © 2015 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2015. All rights reserved.
Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved.
Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2015 and/or its affiliates.


text:
Are Kat Von D and Jesse James still a tattoo-laden twosome? The sexy skin-sketcher is opening up about rumors that she and Jesse have split.
Breathe a sigh of relief, Von-James fans -- Kat says she and Sandra Bullock's ex are still going strong.
"We're a couple," she tells Joy Behar, adding about reports to the contrary: "I think, you know, 99 percent of all that stuff out there is B.S. to begin with, so you can't really put a lot of validation in it."
For the full interview, catch "The Joy Behar Show" tonight at 9 p.m. on HLN.
Related stories on ETonline.com:Denise Richards on Charlie Sheen: 'I Have a lot of Faith in My Ex'
Fergie, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Heidi Klum all get an F on this week's Fashion Offenders.
Beyonce and Alicia Keys double date with their famous hubbies on today's Celebs Gone Social.
See what the cast of "American Beauty" is up to today.
Jennifer Lopez shares an adorable photo of her look-alike daughter, plus more celebritots on social media on today's Celebs Gone Social.
Prince Harry, Jessica Alba and more stars who threw out the first pitch at baseball games.
Sofia Vergara poses in a revealing neon bikini while her "Modern Family" castmates hit the beach in Australia on Celebs Gone Social.
Get the scoop on the RHONJ stars' recent whereabouts on Replay.


text:
Expansion of Bayside church underway
By Liam La Guerre | email@example.com
Construction to expand the Siloam Reformed Church of New York in Bayside is underway and officials expect the work will be completed this year.
Read More ...Construction to expand the Siloam Reformed Church of New York in Bayside is underway and officials expect the work will be completed this year.
Read More ...A tattoo artist in Bayside is holding a fundraiser on Super Bowl Sunday for the Wounded Warrior Project. And he's enlisted tattoo artists from around the country to paint helmets to be sold at the fundraiser.
Read More ...A second man has been charged in a Bayside home invasion that left an elderly couple seriously injured, the district attorney's office said. His alleged partner in crime, who is accused of helping him steal more than $15,000, was caught last year.
Read More ...Ever since my first trip to Greece more than 20 years ago, I've been on the hunt for a restaurant here in New York that served Greek cuisine the way I remembered it in the neighborhood restaurants that I visited in Athens and on Crete. Kalamaki, a recent addition to Bayside's dining scene, is just such a place.
Read More ...Three condo apartments of varying sizes and value around the borough are hosting open houses this weekend.
Read More ...Charges against the father of a 4-month old Bayside boy have been upgraded to murder after the medical examiner determined his son died from abusive head trauma, authorities said.
Read More ...A 4-month-old boy from Bayside died Christmas Eve several days after he was hospitalized for injuries he suffered during an alleged assault by his father, authorities said.
Read More ...A 28-year-old Bayside resident is charged with assaulting his 4-month-old baby, causing the infant to suffer brain damage that has left him in "grave condition," authorities said.
Read More ...Community members in Bayside no longer have to worry about the possible overdevelopment or radical changes to a collection of artfully designed Tudor apartments.
Read More ...Bayside residents recently took to social media to bemoan the loss of an electronic store on Bell Boulevard, saying it marked the end of an era filled with 45 RPM records and the British Invasion. But the store isn't closing — it's just adding a modern repair shop.
Read More ...In late October, the Department of Homeless Services looked into Bayside as a possible candidate to host a homeless shelter. But, according to Councilman Paul Vallone, those plans have since been removed.
Read More ...Chicken lovers flocked to Mr.Pollo #1 on Friday to try the new Colombian restaurant on Bayside's Bell Boulevard.
Read More ...The Bayside Village Business Improvement District (BID) wants the city to put a temporary stop on granting filming permits to movie and show makers using Bayside as a shooting location.
Read More ...With more small businesses than big box stores on Bell Boulevard, the commercial strip was the perfect destination for the head of the federal Small Business Administration (SBA) when she made the trip to New York last week.
Read More ...An elderly woman shocked her Bayside neighbors when she accidentally plowed her car through her garage on Friday, police said.
Read More ...


text: [[quoteright:350:http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/mainimg_415x100.gif]][[caption-width-right:415:[[ComedicSociopathy Mow.]]]]''[[http://www.simonscat.com/ Simon's Cat]]'' is an animated cartoon series by the English animator, Simon Tofield. Each episode revolves around the adventures of a house cat, who uses increasingly heavy-handed tactics to get its owner's attention. The series is hand drawn and then animated in Adobe Flash. There are also four published books and a series of ''[[BritishNewspapers Daily Mirror]]'' [[http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/cartoons/simons-cat/ strips]] featuring the titular cat in comic form, as well as two apps.Cat owners will attest to many of the behaviours seen.[[foldercontrol]][[folder:Episodes include:]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q Simon's Cat in 'Cat Man Do']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rb8aOzy9t4 Simon's Cat in 'Let Me In!']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s13dLaTIHSg Simon's Cat in 'TV Dinner']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQCwHluBqFc Simon's Sister's Dog in 'Fed Up']] (a PSA for the RSPCA)* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1qHVVbYG8Y Simon's Cat in 'Fly Guy']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOHvZjiDANg Simon's Cat in 'Hot Spot']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuf61OjvoPQ Simon's Cat in 'Snow Business']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKvNqe8cKU4 Simon's Cat in 'The Box']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1Pk62X7XQ Simon's Cat in 'Cat Chat']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv0OUdQNVM0 Simon's Cat in 'Lunch Break']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9EYkdFsP2w Simon's Cat: Beyond the Fence]] (a TV advert for the second book)* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn2h3_aH3vo Simon's Cat in 'Santa Claws']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV3SWjrt2rE Simon's Cat in 'Sticky Tape']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYdDRTRaWr8 Simon's Cat in 'Hop It']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYlD0KXujAk Simon's Cat in 'Hidden Treasure']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWIPZvwcnX8 Simon's Cat in 'Cat & Mouse']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VLcLH97eRw Simon's Cat in 'Double Trouble']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3JC24p0YsA Simon's Cat in 'Catnap']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB90NjT51gg Simon's Cat in 'Fowl Play']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PtFwlKfvHI Simon's Cat in 'Shelf Life']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z6YUGGlwtA Simon's Cat in 'Tongue Tied']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrivBjlv6Mw Simon's Cat in 'Window Pain']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQwD0QCbxaA Simon's Cat in 'Ready, Steady, Slow!']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITZiZcHfj8s Simon's Cat in 'Springtime']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FatA6Pyw_D8 Simon's Cat in 'Fetch']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4E-uiaIxNc Simon's Cat in 'Nut Again']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzz6lUsF19g Simon's Cat in 'Icecapade']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Te4wx4jtiEA Simon's Cat in 'Feed Me']]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpHpm_b0vRY Simon's Cat in 'Screen Grab']][[/folder]][[folder:Other videos include:]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLPhdpUe46U Simon's Cat: Kitten Chaos Premiere Event]] (a video from a premiere event for the third book)* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpZpPzSkjrM Simon's Cat in Cat Chat App]] (a trailer for the first app)* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlDhfzKQyD8 Simon Draws: Simon's Cat]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P4rJgTiaRc Simon Draws: The Kitten]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unKg2tlKesA Simon Draws: The Hedgehog]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkgNt2PEfts Simon Draws: The Dog]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrBDLGI844Q Simon Draws: Rabbits]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRSqfTDnVuM Simon Draws: Simon]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBNejJn8IYs Simon Draws: Mice]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cqri1MV5zQ Cat Fans Do: Simon's Cat #1]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C-lzuRRBYw Cat Fans Do: Simon's Cat #2]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXIimEfnsDI Cat Fans Do: Simon's Cat #3]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE6yvCGdDCo Cat Fans Do: Simon's Cat #4]]* [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf5vjW0bDKA Cat Fans Do: Simon's Cat #5]][[/folder]]----!!''Simon's Cat'' contains examples of:* AttentionDeficitOohShiny: The cat has a pretty short attention span, unless food is involved.** Seen in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpHpm_b0vRY "Screen Grab"]], in the beginning. The cat gets annoyed at being woken up by the kitten playing with a feather, and bops him on the head, only to start playing with the feather himself a second later. You can almost hear the dialogue: *bop* "Stop interrupting my na -- ooh, a feather!"* AttentionWhore: While it's usually with the prospect of food in mind, the cat will go to any lengths to be the object of its owner's attention, and will dispose of any opposition (eg. the TV, the computer).* AsideGlance: Episodes tend to end on these.* AuthorAvatar: The owner.* BatterUp: How he eventually wakes up his owner in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q 'Cat Man Do']].* ButtMonkey: The owner just can't catch a break with the cat around.* CatchPhrase: More like a Catch Action -- the cat points to his open mouth and meows, a gesture that usually means "Feed me!"* CatsAreMean: Subverted. He can be mischievous, but rarely is he ever intentionally malevolent.** Most of the time, the cat just wants attention and/or food. It's just that, well, see [[InsaneTrollLogic Insane Cat Logic]] below for details.* ChristmasEpisode* CompanionCube: The lawn gnome.* ComedicSociopathy: Of the most adorable kind.* ContinuityNod: One of the increasingly bizarre array of objects pulled from under the fridge in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYlD0KXujAk 'Hidden Treasure']] is the baseball bat from [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q 'Cat Man Do']]. The cat even pauses to examine it before throwing it aside.* CuteKitten: The eponymous cat. Also the kitten from the "Catnap" episode.* DogsAreDumb* [[EvenEvilHasStandards Even Cats Have Standards:]] The cat is visibly horrified when the hedgehog begins trying to ''eat'' one of the snails racing in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQwD0QCbxaA 'Ready, Steady, Slow!']] Even going so far as to cover the eyes of the lawn gnome.* HeavySleeper: The owner.* IMeantToDoThat: It's a cat, [[CaptainObvious duhhh]].* ImpactSilhouette: Seen in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuf61OjvoPQ 'Snow Business']]. Justified in that it was soft snow he landed in.* [[InsaneTrollLogic Insane Cat Logic:]] Most of the cat's actions boil down to "Getting my owner's attention = Food!". More specifically "Hit with bat = Food!", "Unplug computer = Food!", "Turn off TV = Food!". To the cat, any action he performs will end up providing him food.* ISurrenderSuckers: The kitten does this in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VLcLH97eRw 'Double Trouble']]. After plopping into the "surrender" position (lying flat on his back) in response to the cat hissing at him, the kitten waits until the cat closes his eyes and gloats over his victory, then deftly throws a pillow at him, nearly knocking him off the couch.* ItsAllAboutMe: It's a pet, so it's granted it can't really act considerate, but the cat endlessly and sometimes rather elaborately pesters its owner to dote over him, and ''now''.* JerkWithAHeartOfGold: The cat. He is quite mischievous most of the time, but he has his moments where he's affectionate.* LookBehindYou:** Used to get away from a chatty hedgehog.** Used to distract a bird during a snowball fight in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuf61OjvoPQ 'Snow Business']].* MadeOfPlasticine: Some things in the house break more easily than one would expect. Most prominently seen in the ''Santa Claws'' episode, where the cat ''[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nn2h3_aH3vo#t=110 strips all the branches off a Christmas tree]]''.* RealLifeWritesThePlot:** How [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0ffwDYo00Q 'Cat Man Do']] came to be, according to creator Simon Tofield:-->[[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6589965/Simons-Cat-becomes-internet-star.html "I basically sat down one day and thought I'd teach myself to use some new computer animation...And that morning Hugh, who was then a tiny kitten, had been jumping all over me – pulling my ears and scratching me, trying to wake me up for his breakfast. So I decided to do a little film of a cat trying to wake its owner. And I made it up as I went along."]] ** A lot of the cat's antics are based on the antics of Simon's own cats. The new kitten added to the cast also happens to be based on his newest kitten.* RearrangeTheSong* RummageFail: When the cat is trying to retrieve the ball from under the fridge in [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYlD0KXujAk 'Hidden Treasure']].* ShownTheirWork: Simon has obviously watched his cats carefully to get every motion of the animated furballs very realistic. * ShoutOut: In [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpHpm_b0vRY 'Screen Grab']] the voiceover for the nature documentaries is a ShoutOut to DavidAttenborough, and the commentator for the motor racing is a ShoutOut to Murray Walker, the famous voice of FormulaOne.* SilenceIsGolden: It's a cat, so it's not going to talk. Any speech from Simon is minimal and usually grunts or sighs, but occasionally he'll utter a word or two. In "Window Pains", he actually uttered a full sentence: "What're ya doin'?" * SphereEyes----