200,000 more homeless due to cuts

[Shia Islam]

(photo: Rebecca Naden/PA)

Britain's National Housing Federation (NHF) has predicted that the government's cut to housing benefits will put 200,000 more people at risk of homelessness.

With the emergency budget, the government has announced plans to cut the housing benefit by 10 per cent for people who have been claiming jobseeker's allowance for more than 12 months starting in April 2013, according to a report by The Observer.

The cuts may impact up to 200,000 people who risk losing their homes, adding to the already 140,000 homeless people in Britain. "Cutting housing benefit could have a catastrophic impact on the lives of thousands of people who - despite their best efforts - have failed to find work after 12 months," said David Orr, the chief executive of NHF. "Quite frankly, the proposals are disturbing and unfair."

Additionally, NHS, which represents 1,200 not-for-profit housing associations in England, stated that, "This could impact on housing associations in terms of the possibility of increased rent arrears, impacting on their revenue streams, and therefore their capacity to build new homes and deliver housing and neighbourhood services. It also fails to recognise that for some vulnerable people, and those with complex needs, one year maybe nowhere near enough time to enter paid employment, even if an individual is fully committed to doing so."

The cuts to the housing benefit comes at a time when the Chancellor, George Osborne, announced to cabinet ministers a plan to cut up to 40 per cent of the Whitehall budget, causing even more loses to public jobs and services than previously expected with the emergency budget.

LF/ HE

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 10:19:32 GMT
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=133795&sectionid=351021805

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Whew. At least it's not in the US.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Whew. At least it's not in the US.

No Kidding, just keep that filth and homelessness away from me.
AE, would you please pass me a tissue my hands feel dirty just typing about this rubbish.
Ah, I nearly forgot it is time for me pedicure!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No Kidding, just keep that filth and homelessness away from me.
AE, would you please pass me a tissue my hands feel dirty just typing about this rubbish.
Ah, I nearly forgot it is time for me pedicure!

It's coming our way.

We have to raise taxes and cut social programs in order to fund current and past government spending --- which means we will be paying much more for much less benefit from the government.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Ah but you underestimate the greatness of my Yacht Club. I am still accepting members, the only qualification is a PHD, big boobs, or great taste in beer.
When the feces hits the fan here (can you actually imagine throwing feces into a fan, yuck!) I will be sailing away with my Yacht Club.

Imagine the nerve of some people actually lowering the standards of my living, and the value of my property and investments around this once great nation.

<gasps in horror>

 

[Revoltingest]

It's coming our way.

We have to raise taxes and cut social programs in order to fund current and past government spending --- which means we will be paying much more for much less benefit from the government.

The new headline: "20,000 homeless from raised taxes"
(It's already started here in MI, where property taxes have skyrocketed even recently. It's that real estate boom here.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The new headline: "20,000 homeless from raised taxes"

(It's already started here in MI, where property taxes have skyrocketed even recently. It's that real estate boom here.)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear - I don't think that higher taxes cause homelessness on this scale - it's the Reaganomics of the Bush administration finally catching up with us.

We literally are going to have to pay for our mistakes. In order to establish fiscal responsibility in the government, we need higher taxes and less spending so we can bring sanity back to the budget.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear - I don't think that higher taxes cause homelessness on this scale - it's the Reaganomics of the Bush administration finally catching up with us.

I wouldn't compare Reagan with Bush. Their agendas are as different as Friedman & Krugman.

We literally are going to have to pay for our mistakes. In order to establish fiscal responsibility in the government, we need higher taxes and less spending so we can bring sanity back to the budget.

I don't argue that. But I'd prefer the gov't to stop making newer & bigger mistakes for which I must pay.
It reminds me of the movie, Runaway Train, in which the eponymous juggernaut is on autopilot, oblivious
to its doomed course.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wouldn't compare Reagan with Bush. Their agendas are as different as Friedman & Krugman.

Obviously I disagree, and I'm not alone.

Reaganomics are back - but don't add up | Business | The Observer

Jeff Madrick, an economics professor at New York's Cooper Union and New School universities and a New York Times columnist, reckons Bush's plan and rhetoric are dangerously reminiscent of previous occasions when things headed out of control.

'This is Reaganomics-plus. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and the current proposals are bigger than Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. Plus we plan to spend more on defence,' he said. 'Also, for Reagan, the baby boomer retirement bulge was 30 years off - now it's less than 10 years off, which is a major element in the time bomb.'

I'm thinking specifically of tax cuts and deregulation, while increasing government spending.

 

[NewEnglandGirl]

We literally are going to have to pay for our mistakes. In order to establish fiscal responsibility in the government, we need higher taxes and less spending so we can bring sanity back to the budget.

I think you may find a good number of people who will agree with you, regardless of party affiliation or political leanings. Unfortunately, the government seems to be continuing to chug along with willy nilly spending in complete disregard to our situation. It has been suggested that those in power simply do not understand the relative magnitude of numbers and I suspect this may be the case.

The news story in the OP is very disturbing, because I feel that it shows two things. One, an utter disregard and perhaps disdain for those in need - something that is running pretty rampant in the US as well, in my opinion. The other is a lack of basic understanding of business and the domino effect - another thing that is not understood here. If people cannot pay for their rented homes, landlords cannot pay their mortgages either. If people lose their houses to foreclosure and cannot pay property taxes, towns and cities cannot pay for essential services, and etc... A veritable cascade of crises.

We may not have the headlines, but it doesn't mean that it isn't happening here. Admitting fully that I don't have all the answers or even full knowledge of where the taxes are spent, I think the first answer is to cut runaway spending on superfluous programs and pork before raising taxes on already beleagered citizens. And then considering tax hikes after the first spending cuts have been implemented and have a chance to take effect. But to cut social services is inhumane, imho.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I've read this article a few times, for whatever it's worth.

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems to me that Bush applied Reagan's economic theories [perhaps to the objections of his advisors] that had already failed and caused the 1991 recession. Bush went much farther than Reagan, applying similar (or the same) principles and theory.

Now the Republican party looks to Reagan as their hero, and are ready to apply the same theory again. That's frightening, because it's massively failed twice.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm thinking specifically of tax cuts and deregulation, while increasing government spending.

They are similar there. Both Reagan & Bush presided over a net increase in federal regulation during every single year of their reign (as measured by the size of the CFR). Of course, Congress played a role in this too, so there's bi-partisan blame aplenty to go around. But under Reagan, we saw a huge reduction in marginal tax rates & a real decline in taxes collected, while under Bush we saw small tax rate reductions federal revenue increase (except 02 & 03) because of his changes in IRS practices. There are other differences, but this is enuf for now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There are other differences, but this is enuf for now.

Sure, I agree that there are differences... but it's the similarities that caused our current economic breakdown. And these similarities are now core Republican values, despite their current and historical failures.

It's ironic that Republicans play on illigitimate fears rather than real ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure, I agree that there are differences... but it's the similarities that caused our current economic breakdown. And these similarities are now core Republican values, despite their current and historical failures.
It's ironic that Republicans play on illigitimate fears rather than real ones.

From my perspective in real estate, I blame both Dems & Repubs. Repubs don't have the same core Repub values they once had. These days, they're quite similar to Dems...all big gov't, regulation, subsidies, bail-outs, etc. Both are expert panderers, even though neither side can accept their own faults. It's always the other guy who is inept & evil, ain't it?

The economy weakened after 9/11, but the crash started with the housing bubble, which was unstable because of government required risky lending to marginal borrowers. Having borrowed to the hilt, any economic downturn would cause the borrowers' financial collapse. Fannie & Freddie did this because the gov't created & ran them for that expressed purpose, ie, expanding home ownership. Federal regulation also imposed this goal upon commercial banks. The crash of Freddie & Fannie preceded the Wall St collapse & bail-outs. Fannie & Freddie had federal guarantees to investors, but Wall St didn't. I'd have let Wall St firms fail.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From my perspective in real estate, I blame both Dems & Repubs. Repubs don't have the same core Repub values they once had. These days, they're quite similar to Dems...all big gov't, regulation, subsidies, bail-outs, etc. Both are expert panderers, even though neither side can accept their own faults. It's always the other guy who is inept & evil, ain't it?

I don't think so, and I don't think that I can be convinced otherwise, but I'm willing to listen. I'm thinking from Reagan to today, because Reagan was a turning point in the modern GOP. The GOP did shift to big government under Bush in terms of Presidential power and the Patriot Act (etc). However, the GOP does want lower taxes for everyone (=less government funding = less government) and have a freer market (less regulation = less government). They promote these principles on the idea of the American entrepeneur building his business freely and letting the market determine everything (including healthcare, the environment, and education).

The GOP is trying to make itself new in light of the massive failure of Bush, but they are unable to produce a competent candidate for 2012. It will take them longer than four years to regain their strength.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think so, and I don't think that I can be convinced otherwise, but I'm willing to listen. I'm thinking from Reagan to today, because Reagan was a turning point in the modern GOP. The GOP did shift to big government under Bush in terms of Presidential power and the Patriot Act (etc). However, the GOP does want lower taxes for everyone (=less government funding = less government) and have a freer market (less regulation = less government). They promote these principles on the idea of the American entrepeneur building his business freely and letting the market determine everything (including healthcare, the environment, and education).

Sure, some Repubs hold such views, but as a whole I just don't see it. Under every prez including & since Reagan, the CFR has ballooned with regulation. (Dubya, in particular, loved big government. And his father increased tax rates.) They chose to sign the laws.

The GOP is trying to make itself new in light of the massive failure of Bush, but they are unable to produce a competent candidate for 2012.

How can that be known yet? 2012 is a lifetime away.

If this debacle is seen as simplistically as either a Republican or Democrat caused mess, then we are doomed indeed,
for the true causes will be hidden behind blind partisanship.

 

[NewEnglandGirl]

Although much of the housing bubble is due to government mishandling, I don't think we should rule out individual greed. I watched a good number of people selling houses and property for many times their original worth during the bubble, sometimes to turnaround "experts", but usually to new families and individuals. What I could not understand was the rationale of the purchasers. What goes up must invariable come back down, and housing prices are no different. Here in New England, the prices were unsustainable already several years before the collapse, making these purchases unsellable, as well as unaffordable.

Honestly, I don't see either party with a competent candidate right now. Or an electable one, especially in light of the anti-incumbency wave. It will be interesting to see who chooses to step into the limelight over the next year and how they will fare, particularly bearing in mind how short American's memories and allegiances tend to be.

 

[brbubba]

It's coming our way.

We have to raise taxes and cut social programs in order to fund current and past government spending --- which means we will be paying much more for much less benefit from the government.

Higher taxes would suck, although I'm still in support of a sales tax instead of an income tax.

Lessening benefits might not be such a bad thing though. Although the government paints this picture of the single mother working two jobs to feed her kids, my experience with government benefits is very very different. The majority of people I see receiving government benefits are hardly model citizens and would rather fleece the government than find a decent job.