Posted by Jake on Friday, April 05, 2013 with 6 comments | Labels: benefits, Big Society, budget cuts, defence, education, inequality, jobs, NHS, pay, taxation
Fee and KJ work out who the real scroungers are...
SOURCE TELEGRAPH: Minimum wage could be frozen or cut if it starts to cost jobs or damage economy
At present, the Low Pay Commission, which sets the minimum wage, only has to “consider” the impact on the wider economy. The government now wants to force it to set a minimum wage that supports government cutting costs during a recession. The news alarms anti-poverty campaigners who have been urging the government to adopt the higher “living wage”, which is estimated to be £7.45 this year. Labour is considering making the living wage a key part of the party’s 2015 election manifesto.
Report says 500,000 key staff will lose income under the coalition's benefits crackdown.
I agree the wage should be at least 7.45
ReplyDeleteCouncil tenants: defending ‘secure tenancies’ and opposing means tested Council housing
ReplyDeleteFebruary 9, 2013
martinwicks Benefit Cuts, Coalition government, Fixed term tenancies, Swindon Tenants Campaign Group 3 Comments
This is an article published on the Red Pepper website.
Ever since 1980 Council tenants have been ‘secure tenants’ under law, which gives us genuine security. We know that if we pay our rent and behave in a civilised fashion then we don’t face the prospect of being turfed out of our homes. We don’t face the insecurity which tenants do in the private rented sector.
However, this ‘secure tenancy’ is now under threat. All Local Authorities are in the process of drawing up a ‘Tenancy Strategy’ which must include the type of tenure it offers to its tenants. They now have the freedom to introduce ‘flexible’ or ‘fixed term’ tenancies; in effect temporary tenancies, for a number of years. Many Councils are introducing five year tenancies, two years for some. The government’s rationale for these is that ‘social tenancies’ should provide a “safety net” for when people are “in difficulties”, a tenancy “when it is needed for as long as it is needed”. In other words ‘social housing’ is conceived as a tenure only for the poor.
The coalition government doesn’t talk about ‘secure tenancies’. It prefers to call them ‘lifetime tenancies’. There is a propaganda purpose in this. It implies that it’s unreasonable to give tenants ‘a home for life’. In fact, a ‘secure tenancy’ is an open-ended tenancy, but it’s not necessarily for life. Tenants can be evicted for breaches of their tenancy agreement and are.
Councils introducing fixed term tenancies have to draw up a set of criteria for deciding whether or not a tenancy is renewed or terminated. If the latter then the tenant will have to either find more expensive private rented accommodation or get themselves a mortgage, if they can.
Many Councils are setting an income threshold above which a tenant will be considered not to ‘need’ the tenancy.
We pay CHILD BENEFIT to EVERY child in this country, even to those children whos parents are millionaires. Why does someone earning over 25k a year need this benefit? our entire household income is 21k and we manage (3 of us)We get no benefits, I don't mind subsidising those out of work, the disabled, single parents even, what I DO mind is that we pay tax, and some of that cash is then given to parents on over 50k a year.
ReplyDeleteSorry come again? Why should someone over 25k receive child benefit? Well maybe if they're a family of six they may need it, like me and mine! My husband earns just a little over 25k and we barely survive! I can't seem to get a job at the minute for love nor money, so yeah child benefit is a big help out to us! Don't judge as every ones circumstances are different!!!!
DeleteSimples isn't it ANON
DeleteIts the same with employers who employ illegal immigrants they are rpping off the rest
Delete