Is continuation of the middle classes possible? - Moneyweek

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 30 Oct 2015, 15:46

johnhemming2 wrote:Starvation is almost certainly a violation of Article 2. However, UK laws on destitution mean that there are default protections.

What price those laws, John, when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time. The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 30 Oct 2015, 15:58

emordnilap wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:If they have the right to buy food they must be allowed the money to do this or the right has no meaning.
I assumed he also allowed people the right to earn money.

That could be difficult if the government and others are encouraging immigration to keep the price of labour down!

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 30 Oct 2015, 16:04

Someone in rent arrears and facing eviction is in much the same situation as someone facing eviction for mortgage arrears.

a response to:

kenneal - lagger wrote:What price those laws, John, when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time. The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.

This has been edited subsequent to the following post.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Oct 2015, 16:07

johnhemming2 wrote:Someone in rent arrears and facing eviction is in much the same situation as someone facing eviction for mortgage arrears

What exactly is this supposed to mean as a response to the post to which it replies.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 30 Oct 2015, 18:11

johnhemming2 wrote:Someone in rent arrears and facing eviction is in much the same situation as someone facing eviction for mortgage arrears.

a response to:
kenneal - lagger wrote:What price those laws, John, when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time. The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.
This has been edited subsequent to the following post.

Someone in mortgage arrears has the potential to sell their property and downsize and should be allowed that possibility. There should also be the fall back position of being offered affordable private or social rental if they are unable to purchase a new property.

I know that there isn't enough social housing and that the bail out money (Socialism?) that has been pumped into the banks has caused a bubble in the housing market reducing the availability of affordable house purchase and rental. To combat this the government must print some more money to loan to themselves and invest in social housing. To reduce the inflationary pressure as caused by the bank bailout (which is never acknowledged) most of the rentals from the new housing should be used to repay the loan that the government made to themselves. In another way of looking at it the government should grant themselves a mortgage and then repay it. That is no more inflationary than you or I getting a mortgage to buy a house.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 30 Oct 2015, 19:52

Someone who is unemployed and of working age who is not deemed as a result of disability to need a spare room can rent a spare room out to a lodger if they don't have enough money from housing benefit to pay all the rent.

It is, in the end, better than evicting people for underoccupation (which happens anyway).

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 31 Oct 2015, 02:57

We weren't talking about the unemployed or disabled we were talking about the working poor, those on starvation wages which need topping up by the state.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 31 Oct 2015, 07:05

kenneal - lagger wrote:We weren't talking about the unemployed or disabled we were talking about the working poor, those on starvation wages which need topping up by the state.

He can't help it Ken. If you ask him to think about poor people, he can only think of them in terms of benefit scrounging layabouts. The only qualification to the above being someone who is disabled. In other words, unless you are sick, if you are poor then you are, by definition, "undeserving" poor. Or, if this is not how he thinks about the poor, then then it is certainly how he is wishing to portray them such that we all start to think of them in such terms.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Oct 2015, 08:38

I used to think Liberal was different to Tory. Sorry, my bad.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 31 Oct 2015, 10:09

kenneal - lagger wrote:We weren't talking about the unemployed or disabled we were talking about the working poor, those on starvation wages which need topping up by the state.

and I thought a reference was being made to the social sector size criterion.

"Starvation wages" is not an accurate description anyway.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 31 Oct 2015, 10:11

What is this supposed to mean then?

kenneal - lagger wrote:What price those laws, John, when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time. The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Nov 2015, 03:52

johnhemming2 wrote:What is this supposed to mean then?

kenneal - lagger wrote:What price those laws, John, when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time. The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.

I though this was self explanatory. Does anyone else want to put it better?

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 01 Nov 2015, 11:43

kenneal - lagger wrote:What price those laws, John,

Which laws?

kenneal - lagger wrote:when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time.

What changes are proposed that will make people destitute. I oppose the tax credit changes, but they are a reduction in the cash people have not destitution. I have dealt with people who are really destitute - and managed to get them onto support.

kenneal - lagger wrote: The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.

You are referring to a short time. How long is this short time? How does it effect decisionmaking in respect of accommodation and eating.

Basically what you originally wrote appeared to be complete rubbish. It still appears to be complete rubbish. A misunderstanding of the social sector size condition could give it a bit of credence. Which is why I have responded to that.

What do you mean?

Or do you retract the comment about destitution?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 01 Nov 2015, 15:57

johnhemming2 wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:What price those laws, John,
Which laws?

The laws that you quoted thus, "However, UK laws on destitution mean that there are default protections."

kenneal - lagger wrote:when the government is seeking to stop payments to people who will be made destitute by this action albeit for a short time.
What changes are proposed that will make people destitute. I oppose the tax credit changes, but they are a reduction in the cash people have not destitution. I have dealt with people who are really destitute - and managed to get them onto support.

Most people on tax credits use all the money that they get at the moment without room for any fripperies. Reducing their tax credits will mean that they cannot pay all their current bills. Therefore they will become destitute. You may quibble about the exact meaning of destitute but they will be unable to pay for all their essentials which I class as destitute.

kenneal - lagger wrote: The short time is long enough for them to either starve or be evicted if they choose to eat rather than dwell.
You are referring to a short time. How long is this short time? How does it effect decisionmaking in respect of accommodation and eating.

Basically what you originally wrote appeared to be complete rubbish. It still appears to be complete rubbish. A misunderstanding of the social sector size condition could give it a bit of credence. Which is why I have responded to that.

What do you mean?

The short time I am referring to is the approximately 18 month gap between the reduction in their tax credit payments and the imposition of the living wage. These people have no savings so the shortage of money will take effect immediately. If you do not have enough money to pay your rent, energy bills and eat, which one do you pay?

If you have any information on people who are losing their tax credits which would change my view on this I would be grateful to hear it.

Or do you retract the comment about destitution?[/quote]

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 01 Nov 2015, 16:49

I use the standard definition of destitution in the English Language. It is the same as facing starvation. not having enough cash to buy enough food to eat. That is not in a takeaway or restaurant and not having insufficient cash to buy raw caviar, but not enough money to buy ordinary food to eat.

The people on tax credits will have more than those on JSA or ESA. Those on JSA and ESA are not destitute. Hence those having more money are not destitute.

If you decide to change the definition of destitution then you are starting to speak a different language and debate becomes impractical.

You refer to "essentials" and "fripperies". What are "essentials". For the purposes of this debate I am talking about food to eat, clothes and somewhere to stay.